Grist » Meredith Nileshttp://grist.org
Environmental News, Commentary, AdviceTue, 31 Mar 2015 20:47:05 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/http://1.gravatar.com/blavatar/330e84b0272aae748d059cd70e3f8f8d?s=96&d=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.png » Meredith Nileshttp://grist.org
Climate change cobenefits: new opportunities for policy?http://grist.org/article/2010-11-16-climate-change-cobenefits-new-opportunities-for-policy/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/2010-11-16-climate-change-cobenefits-new-opportunities-for-policy/#commentsWed, 17 Nov 2010 09:37:45 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=41067]]>This week, I’ve been attending the 3rd annual Governor’s Global Climate Summit at UC Davis, where I am a PhD student in Ecology. With only a month and a few days left until Arnold finishes his term as governor of “the great state of California” as he calls it, he’s pulled out all the stops to be sure that his legacy of climate work is remembered. But perhaps more interesting has been the undertone of the conference: recognizing the co-benefits to other areas when we address climate change.

To be fair, Arnold has the right to gloat: It was only two weeks ago that Prop 23 failed in a state referendum, which would have halted his Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) to establish an emissions reduction program on par to what federal legislation has aimed to do. The Governator spent a good part of his speech Tuesday remarking about the process of defending his climate change bill noting that the Texas oil companies that wanted to squash AB 32 spent millions trying to do so and hoped to “kill California’s environmental laws.” But in the end Prop 23 failed by not a small margin- but by a full 22 points, which certainly did demonstrate the commitment to climate change policies from the people of California, not merely the legislators.

And while George Schultz (former Reagan Secretary of State and strong supporter of AB 32) hopped on stage to chant, “No on 23!”, the pomp and circumstance of celebrating Prop 23’s defeat was soon overshadowed by a very different theme: co-benefits. Climate change is not merely climate change anymore — it is now a platform in which many other issues can be addressed.

Take for example, Governor Granholm, who yesterday touted the benefits of clean, green energy for the state of Michigan after they set up policies to encourage renewable battery companies to come into Michigan. Sure, it makes environmental sense to use renewable batteries — but Granholm wasn’t as concerned with the environmental benefits as the job benefits that came with it — 63,000 new ones by her count as a result of 17 new businesses coming into Michigan to manufacture these batteries. Jobs in Michigan means jobs that aren’t going to China and India in her perspective, and hell, if we can create an environmentally friendly product — that’s a win win. A climate-jobs co-benefit.

What about others? Louise Jackson, a renowned UC Davis professor and agroecologist spent the morning discussing the potential to pay farmers for environmental co-benefits that have both climate, water, and other environmental benefits. Meanwhile George Schultz proposed that climate change mitigation offers unprecedented benefits for national security and urged the Pentagon to get involved. Harrison Ford extolled the co-benefits of preventing deforestation in tropical areas. Climate change benefits yes, but untold other benefits to local livelihoods, plant biodiversity, water quality, and medicinal opportunities.

All of these insightful comments have led me to believe that we’ve been addressing climate change policy in the wrong way. Instead of focusing solely on climate change, why not use climate change as a platform upon which so many other positive policies could be created? Yes, we need real and clear commitments to reducing emissions and funding for adaptation throughout the world — but perhaps we can also create reductions and gain new allies in the fight for climate change if we recognize that it never has been and never can be a single issue. Climate change will affect us all and affect all things on the earth — and as such, it requires broad reaching policies to address it.

Yesterday, George Schultz stated with regards to Prop 23, “This is a people’s issue and the reason we won with 22 percent is because we got all the votes — we appealed to voters across the political spectrum.” He further urged that citizens and politicians shouldn’t get stuck on the one thing they can’t agree on — rather let’s focus on the many things we do agree on. When we start to recognize that climate change is truly a people’s issue and that it can be addressed through policies that can benefit a host of other issues — be it energy independence, national security, or food production — we can also see the creative ways in which it can be addressed with or without an international agreement or even federal legislation. Though we still need these types of initiatives to make significant progress, we can also consider what else can be done now. As Arnold said yesterday, “The Green Revolution is moving ahead with or without an international agreement … and we are moving ahead and doing our work.” Perhaps now we can think about it in a more creative way.

Filed under: Climate & Energy]]>http://grist.org/article/2010-11-16-climate-change-cobenefits-new-opportunities-for-policy/feed/0What the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill means for farmershttp://grist.org/article/what-the-kerry-lieberman-climate-bill-means-for-farmers/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/what-the-kerry-lieberman-climate-bill-means-for-farmers/#commentsMon, 17 May 2010 22:13:46 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/what-the-kerry-lieberman-climate-bill-means-for-farmers/]]>Thus far the majority of analysis of the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill has focused on the energy components of the bill, including an extension of nuclear power, “clean coal” from carbon storage and sequestration, and offshore drilling expansion. The bill also provides unprecedented programs for agriculture and food systems in the U.S. and internationally. Unfortunately, while the bill contains strong language promoting sustainable agriculture, it also offers support for troubling agricultural practices that have yet to significantly prove their capacity to reduce emissions.

I was at a meeting recently where someone said, “Agriculture is a culprit, a victim, and a solution,” which poignantly encapsulated the challenges and promise of agriculture in the future. Agriculture is responsible for problematic emissions — particularly methane and nitrous oxide, which are generated by manures, livestock, and soil management, including nitrogen additions, and are considerably more potent than carbon dioxide. Agriculture stands to be greatly affected by climate change, from crop ranges to yields and water allocation. Yet farmers can do more than minimize their impact.

So, what does this climate bill ultimately mean for farmers, for the role of agriculture in the climate debate, and ultimately for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?

First and foremost, the K-L bill follows in the footsteps of the Waxman-Markey legislation, passed last summer, by establishing an agricultural and forestry offsets program. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency predicted that such a program could provide annual net benefits to farmers as high as $18 billion — an amount that could fundamentally change the way America farms. Yet, while these benefits are attractive, achieving true GHG reductions must mean that legislation is incentivizing effective and real practices.

Under the K-L bill, the offsets program is run under the USDA with significant input from an advisory committee that could be made up of academics, business representatives, NGOs, and government officials. Though the projects that will be eligible for the offsets program are not officially set in stone, the bill does outline a “minimum number of practices” which must be considered for inclusion by the advisory committee. The list of practices is largely similar to the one revealed in the Waxman-Markey bill last year after House Agriculture Committee Chairman Colin Peterson added a 50-plus page markup to the bill. The full list of “potential practices” is a diverse array, including altered tillage, cover cropping, nitrogen fertilization efficiency, farming methods used on certified organic farms, pasture-based livestock systems, reductions in animal management emissions, rotational grazing, crop rotations, and methods for increasing carbon sequestration in soils.

The K-L bill also goes one step further than just a carbon offset program. It establishes a “Carbon Conservation Program” designed to encourage GHG reductions and sequestration activities for landowners and others with grazing contracts not eligible for the offset program. The CCP does what a lot of farmers wanted: it provides a way to reward the early adopters of beneficial practices. It will provide incentives for farmers already practicing organic practices — or cover cropping or reduced tillage — to continue to do so. This is vital, but also has the potential to backfire if the practices being rewarded are not actually providing climate change benefits.

The bill’s list includes several practices that have questionable benefits to the climate and that could create additional environmental problems. Featured prominently is no-till agriculture, which is widely associated with Roundup-Ready genetically modified crops and often accompanied by increased herbicide use to control weeds in lieu of tilling. Biofuels are also weighted heavily in the bill, even though certain kinds have been shown not to reduce greenhouse gases. The inclusion of composting in the bill ought to be positive, but “compost” can sometimes be a cover word for chemical-laden sewage sludge.

Close board oversight and quality methodologies will be crucial to verifying that any practices promoted by an offset program actually have the science to back up their measurable net reductions in GHG emissions. If a practice such as no-till agriculture reduces carbon dioxide emissions by limiting the number of tractor passes on a field, but simultaneously increases emissions of nitrous oxide — a greenhouse gas 300 times as strong as carbon dioxide — and use of herbicides, the overall benefit to the climate could be nil or worse. Technical assistance and outreach for farmers and landowners will also be incredibly important, but thus far, little research exists to understand the types of farms and farmers willing and able to participate in offset initiatives.

A climate bill that establishes a carbon offset program in agriculture and forestry is only going to be effective if those offsets are legitimate and if they are accompanied by strong efforts in other sectors. Unfortunately, the offshore drilling, expansion of carbon sequestration and storage practices, and nuclear power touted in the K-L bill not only have questionable benefits for reducing GHG emissions, but carry serious environmental risks such as has been clearly demonstrated by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Agriculture can and should be part of the solution by reducing its own emissions and sequestering carbon with proven techniques, but it’s not the only solution, and it cannot stand alone in a climate bill that falls so short of true environmental progress.

This morning the House Agriculture Committee released the 49-page Peterson amendment to the Waxman-Markey climate bill. It has been a laborious task, requiring dozens of closed door meetings, compromises (almost entirely at the expense of Waxman who has worked so hard to keep the bill strong), and eventually a very happy Chairman Peterson and House Agriculture Committee. As I combed through the amendment this morning, I was delighted to see a variety of inclusions that are positive and were advocated for by progressive environmental, consumer and farmer organizations. Yet many are problematic for a climate change bill that, let’s not forget, is ultimately supposed to, above all else, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to protect the environment and public health.

First and foremost, the bill reverts back to the original draft discussion, which explicitly exempted agriculture and forestry from the definition of capped sector. In the latest versions of the bill such language was dropped, leading some to speculate that in theory, large scale factory farms could potentially be regulated under the bill. Not true anymore.

Yet the most significant change is how much power the amendment gives to the Secretary of Agriculture, who is now exclusively and completely in charge of the entire offsets program, taking the responsibility from the EPA administrator, as has always been the case in the bill until now. It gives the Secretary of Ag the ability to basically determine what an offset is — the standards, methodologies, etc. This is problematic not because I believe that USDA employees or the Secretary of Agriculture don’t understand life cycle analysis’ (LCAs), methodologies or science, but because the mission of the USDA is not to protect the environment or public health, as is the goal in reducing GHG emissions. The two just don’t align quite right.

It is unfortunate that a compromise could not be worked out where both the EPA and the USDA shared responsibilities of such a program. The EPA could use its mandate for environmental protection to determine scientifically the types of offset programs that reduce GHGs, and the USDA could use its vast expertise and established relationships within the farm community to implement the program, oversee its third party verification processes, and monitor the changes.

The amendment goes one step further and actually begins to spell out the types of practices that should be eligible for offsets. So even though the Secretary of Agriculture is supposed to create this list after the bill (ideally with scientific input) it mandates that there is a “minimum list of what should be eligible for offsets”. Among the eligible:

Altered tillage practices

Winter cover cropping, continuous cropping and other means to increase biomass returned to soil

Reduction in nitrogen fertilizer use or increase in nitrogen use efficiency

Reduction in the frequency and duration of flooding of rice paddies (which creates methane)

Reduction in carbon emissions from organic soils

Reduction in GHGs from manure and effluent

Reduction in GHGs in animal management practices including dietary modifications

Waste aeration

Biogas capture and combustion

Field application of manure instead of commercial fertilizer

It is an impressive list, and I commend the committee and Chairman Peterson for including a variety of progressive, organic-style practices including cover and continuous cropping and reducing or eliminating synthetic fertilizers. But the list is premature since it doesn’t necessarily indicate what types of practices within this list are actually appropriate. For example, “waste aeration” is a fairly broad term. In reality what it means is not pooling manure together into lagoons and pools as is typical on large scale factory farms or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). When manure pools together in this way, it decomposes anaerobically (i.e. without oxygen), producing excessive and unnecessary methane emissions. So the solution is actually more or less to raise animals on pastures where their manures are deposited and decompose aerobically, producing minimal methane emissions. But this list doesn’t go into that detail.

Same with the animal management practices, including dietary modifications — this could mean feeding animals on natural forages (grass-fed), which in a variety of studies has reduced methane emissions by about 20 to 25 percent. Or, it could mean something as far fetched as genetically engineering our animals to produce less gas. It’s just not clear. Hopefully such distinctions will be clarified later on.

But aside from the list of mostly progressive offsets, the amendment takes a turn for the worse in the later pages, morphing into blatant handouts without proven climate benefits and caveats which illuminate how industrial agriculture interests are overtaking environmental interests in a bill that, again, is fundamentally meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The amendment establishes a GHG Reduction and Sequestration Advisory Committee with 9 members, including a chairperson and vice chairperson, both appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The amendment simply says that those on the committee need to have the experience to be able to understand the science of the issue. It does not state that a diverse group of vested stakeholders should take part, and even worse, makes no explicit request that other government agencies be involved. A GHG Reduction Advisory Committee that doesn’t include the EPA, or the Departments of Labor, Commerce and Interior for that matter, just doesn’t make sense.

The amendment also addresses the hot topic of international indirect land use change and its inclusion or not in LCAs of biofuels. Failure to include all types of emissions generated throughout the process of biofuel production is not a complete and accurate portrayal of the overall net emissions gained or lost. Yet, the bill exempts such emissions from being included for the next five years while a study is conducted and then gives further veto power to the USDA and EPA jointly to reject such emissions from LCAs. All the while, offset projects would be marching forward potentially on false climate premises without including such emissions. The potential result is very real — offset programs and biofuel production practices that are actually creating more greenhouse gas emissions — the result of a bill that is supposed to stop this very practice.

But, just in case there was any question about how biodiesel (mostly soy based) might fare in an LCA regardless of international indirect land use change, the last step of the amendment is to grandfather in a billion plus gallons of the stuff so it can continue to be produced despite whether or not it might actually be worse for the climate. If you’re wondering why biodiesel and not ethanol, that one was already covered and grandfathered in during the 2007 Energy Act. So, even if this bill passes, all of the ethanol and biodiesel with questionable climate benefits can still continue to be produced without a problem. It’s really no different than grandfathering in the dirtiest coal power plants.

I want to congratulate the Peterson amendment for the positive things it does do — consider numerous progressive agricultural practices as part of a comprehensive climate bill. I recognize just how powerful that is and I certainly do not want to underplay such inclusions. Progressive farmers absolutely must play a role in the climate change debate and mitigation strategies — no doubt. But to create an amendment that does so and then turns right around and grandfathers in questionable biofuels, pushes aside science and doesn’t include other government agencies in its GHG Advisory committee is counterproductive to the point that I have to wonder how effective the amendment will be in achieving the overall goal of the Waxman-Markey bill.

Posted in Climate & Energy, Politics ]]>http://grist.org/article/2009-06-25-peterson-climate-bill-changes/feed/0fields.jpgFactory farms get the ultimate handouthttp://grist.org/article/factory-farms-get-the-ultimate-handout/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/factory-farms-get-the-ultimate-handout/#commentsSat, 20 Jun 2009 01:17:53 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/factory-farms-get-the-ultimate-handout/]]>Since the beginning of climate change legislation this session in Congress it has been clear that big agriculture would not be a part of a cap and trade program. Yet, while the Waxman Markey bill has been making its way through Congress, the EPA has also been pushing forward its own agenda of climate related regulations, including the mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from factory farms. Yet, yesterday the House Appropriations Committee undermined this progressive proposed regulation by passing the 2010 Interior and Environment spending bill. An amendment in the bill will prevent the EPA from requiring factory farms to report their GHG emissions–a move that represents a blatant handout to large factory farms.

While climate legislation stalls through Congress, the EPA proposed rule aims to establish at least the basis for regulating GHG emissions- knowing how many we produce and where they come from. Two weeks ago the comment period ended for the Proposed Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, which would require American industries to report their GHG emissions, over a threshold of 25,000 tons. Among the highlights of the proposed rule was the requirement that manure management be considered a reporting category. As such, large scale concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) more commonly known as factory farms, would be required to report their emissions if they reached the 25,000 ton threshold. According to the EPA the number of CAFOs in the U.S. that reached this amount was only around 50 of the largest, most intensive facilities in the country.

There have been a lot of questions floating around as to why Americans should care about livestock poop, particularly in the context of climate change and GHG emissions. While it is little discussed, it is actually quite a significant contributor to GHG emissions. First and foremost- animal manure and livestock produce methane and nitrous oxide, which are about 23 and 300 times respectively stronger than carbon dioxide. According to the EPA GHG Inventory, manure is the 5th largest source of methane and the 4th largest source of nitrous oxide in the U.S. It results in more GHG emissions per year than all cement production and more than twice as many emissions as waste incineration and natural gas systems in the U.S. It should also be mentioned that enteric fermentation-gases produced from livestock-is the number one source of methane emissions in the U.S. Combined, manure and enteric fermentation produce about as many GHG emissions as the entire commercial sector’s burning of fossil fuel in the United States. The EPA did not require that enteric fermentation be considered a reporting category in their proposed rule.

The way in which CAFOs pool their manure together is a large part of the problem here. When stored in pits and lagoons as is typical on factory farms, the manure breaks down anaerobically, in the absence of oxygen, which exacerbates methane emissions. The EPA has acknowledged that when manures are distributed on pastures as would be typical in a grass-fed animal system, methane production is limited. Thus, there are proven ways to reduce methane emissions in manure management.

But with the passage of the House Appropriations amendment last night, there may not even be the chance to attempt to reduce GHG emissions from factory farms. Representative Dicks (D-WA) stated, “A facility of that magnitude and size can well afford to at least report in what the level of methane is,” Dicks said. “I think this is something we need to know. Methane is one of the most important gases that we have to deal with if we’re going to deal with this issue.” Well said.

By preventing the EPA from collecting data from manure systems, the House Appropriations committee is telling the American people that they aren’t serious about climate change or the health of rural communities and farmworkers, who must live with terrible odors and noxious gases associated with such facilities. What is especially disheartening about the move is that it would prevent a much needed better understanding of livestock and manure emissions that would help foster scientific research and effective methods for reducing such emissions. If Congress is serious about climate change then we need the data to understand our emissions, which will only happen for livestock and manure if the amendment is removed before the final version of the bill.

Posted in Climate & Energy, Food, Politics ]]>http://grist.org/article/factory-farms-get-the-ultimate-handout/feed/0cow-butts_orig.jpgA climate policy for agriculture that workshttp://grist.org/article/farming-for-the-climate/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/farming-for-the-climate/#commentsThu, 11 Jun 2009 21:00:37 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/farming-for-the-climate/]]>A proven climate solution. Not since Earl Butz’s famous “hedgerow to hedgerow” comment of the 1970s have America’s farmers been at such a turning point. Food and farming policy in the United States is largely determined by the Farm Bill, behemoth legislation that comes around once every five years. Yet, the current climate legislation–The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES)–offers an unprecedented opportunity to rethink the way America farms.

Since the start of ACES, agriculture interests have had an unspoken, yet powerful voice in the bill. Ag was explicitly exempted from the “capped” sector, which meanth that from the beginning, agriculture was always intended to receive offset benefits in ACES. But the question remains whether agricultural offsets will be awarded to the types of practices and systems that are scientifically proven to actually reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequester carbon.

With the bill now firmly in the grasp of Chairman Peterson of the House Agriculture Committee it will surely be riddled with agriculture handouts when it emerges. But while Peterson may attempt to load the bill, the quality–not the quantity–of such offsets will determine how effective the legislation is at reducing GHG emissions. Agricultural offsets and programs that fail to recognize the proven ability of organic practices and systems to reduce GHG emissions and sequester carbon will offer few real benefits for the climate, the environment, or a progressive farm future.

An increasing amount of peer-reviewed science demonstrates the true ability of organic practices and systems to not only sequester more carbon than conventional and no-till agriculture (yes, even no-till, the industry’s exalted climate change solution), but to inherently produce fewer GHG emissions overall. This is a point I can’t emphasize enough-climate legislation can not simply hope to sequester its way out of a looming environmental crisis. Unless ACES makes actual and verified reductions in GHG emissions it will be ineffective. And the best agricultural solution that has the science to back up such reductions is organic agriculture, with agroecological practices including abstaining from synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use, cover cropping, pasture-based animal production, incorporation of compost and manures into soils, and prevention of fallow fields.

So what does the science say? The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization concluded “[w]ith lower energy inputs, organic systems contribute less to GHG emissions and have a greater potential to sequester carbon in biomass than conventional systems.” Research published by Pelletier et al. last year in Environmental Management found that organic cropping systems required half the fossil fuel inputs and generated three-fourths the GHG emissions of conventional agriculture. Additional studies shared similar results, largely because organic agriculture abstains from using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which require vast quantities of fossil fuels to produce. If we are really aiming for “energy independence” why aren’t we directing our farm policies to organic practices?

Still more scientific studies are finding that organic pasture raised animals offer a variety of climate benefits. The United Nations estimates that animal production contributes nearly one fifth of all global GHG emissions, making it not only a significant source of emissions but a significant opportunity for reductions and mitigation. Research by Flessa et. al. (2002) published in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment suggested that transitioning to pasture agriculture is the single best way to cut GHG emissions in animal production. Additional studies (Boadi et.al., 2004 and DeRamus et. al., 2003) determined that feeding livestock on pasture compared to feedlot diets usually consisting of corn and soy reduced methane emissions about 20%.

The EPA has also determined that when manures are stored or treated in liquid storage systems commonly found on factory farms, the decomposition of manure produces great amounts of methane, unlike when manure is handled as a solid or deposited on pasture, range or paddock lands. Manures spread appropriately on pastures and paddocks produce minimal amounts of methane. Research has also documented that manure stores on conventional farms emitted about twenty-five percent more methane gas than organic farms.

So that’s the first part- inherently fewer emissions because of the way that organic agriculture abstains from chemicals and synthetic ingredients and utilizes natural amendments which help store carbon. This leads me to my next point- sequestration. It’s true that all agriculture can sequester carbon, but if it’s doing so while simultaneously being doused in chemical fertilizers and pesticides the benefits are quickly lost. The new current trend promoted by the agricultural industry is no-till or conservation agriculture, which leaves crop residues on the surface and cuts down on tilling the soil. The supposed perks of no-till include increased sequestration, but recent evidence suggests otherwise.

The dirty little secret of no-till agriculture is that it increases pesticide use and also appears to increase emissions of nitrous oxide–310 times as strong as carbon dioxide. In fact, the USDA acknowledged last year, “By eliminating some or all of the tillage practices under conservation tillage, growers may rely more heavily on the use of herbicides for weed control.” Additional studies have concluded the same. And, increasing research suggests that under a variety of soil and climate conditions no-till agriculture actually increases nitrous oxide emissions. This is coupled with numerous studies including Baker et.al in 2007 that suggest no-till actually doesn’t sequester more carbon than conventional systems.

Recently though, USDA scientists concluded a nine year study comparing organic, conventional and no-till agriculture for sequestration and found the organic production system sequestered more carbon. Scientists noted, “Despite the use of tillage, soil combustible carbon and nitrogen concentrations were higher at all depth intervals to 30cm in organic agriculture compared with that in all other systems.” Further, the scientists concluded that, “these results suggest that organic agriculture can provide greater long-term soil benefits than conventional no-till, despite the use of tillage in organic agriculture.”

Thursday the House Agriculture Committee holds a hearing to review ACES, providing a key opportunity to recognize and act on the science behind the benefit of organic agriculture for climate change. Yet, the current panel line-up does not seem promising- representatives include the American Farm Bureau, the National Association of Corn Growers, National Milk Producers Federation, and even The Fertilizer Institute. Where are the NGOs? Where are the representatives for small family farm producers? Where are the organic farmers?

Progressive climate change legislation is no longer progressive when it perpetuates and rewards industrial agriculture that has been the main source of agricultural emissions for decades. Failure to include organic practices and certified organic producers in ACES will set back our goal of reducing GHGs in the present and prevent America’s farmers from economically transitioning to ecological farming. It’s not too late for the House Agriculture Committee and Chairman Peterson to realize this and set us on future farming course that not only feeds our country but cleans up the planet too.

Posted in Climate & Energy, Food ]]>http://grist.org/article/farming-for-the-climate/feed/0organic-ag.jpgorganicfarmMonsanto targets public radio to spread false biotech messageshttp://grist.org/article/national-public-propaganda/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/national-public-propaganda/#commentsThu, 14 May 2009 00:30:56 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/national-public-propaganda/]]>Editor’s note: This post originally focused on NPR; but we’ve since found that the Monsanto ads run on Marketplace, produced by American Public Media, which isn’t directly affiliated with NPR. We regret the confusion.

—————-

Monsanto’s ad blitzFor years my alarm has been set to public radio so I can lie in bed for five minutes and have a grasp on the day’s news before I even get up. I, like many other Americans, rely on NPR and other public-radio shows for news that is what I deem to be as unbiased and fair as possible. But this morning my ears burned as I listened to an on the American Public Media show Marketplace sponsored by Monsanto, the world’s largest corporate agribusiness chemical firm, touting how its genetically modified (GM) seeds are going to save the world from environmental catastrophe and human hunger. It left me wondering, particularly in tough economic times, how do media ethics hold up? (The GMO seed giant has been bombarding liberal-minded publications with similar propaganda, see image to the right, for months.)

The Monsanto ads are quite simply false. The premise of the ad is more or less that Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) seeds are going to save the world from environmental catastrophe and human hunger. All while the corporation made more than 11 billion dollars in 2008 amidst a world food crisis. The catch phrase, “Produce more, conserve more” even has its own website, which conveniently links directly to Monsanto’s website section on “sustainable agriculture”. But the reality of Monsanto’s seeds and the company’s ethics and commitment to fighting world hunger have nothing to do with producing more or conserving more.

Let’s get a few facts on the table. Eighty-five percent of all GM seeds are engineered for herbicide tolerance. Most of these crops are Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” cotton, corn, soy, and canola seeds. What this tolerance means is that the plant can actually withstand significant amounts of pesticides being sprayed on it–in effect promoting pesticide use. In the past farmers were motivated to spray judiciously since their crops could be adversely affected. Farmers growing GM seeds don’t worry about this, and as a result there has been an increase in pesticide use in the United States since the introduction of GM seeds. The most comprehensive independent research done utilizing USDA data demonstrates that since the introduction of GM crops in the United States, more than 120 million pounds of additional pesticides were used. This seems to be a growing trend as well, as the active ingredient in Roundup Ready crops–glyphosate–s becoming less efficient and creating scores of resistant weeds, resulting in increased use.

In 2008 Monsanto’s total sales for Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides was more than $4 billion–up 59 percent from 2007. Perhaps more importantly, its gross profit from such sales was nearly 2 billion dollars- up 131% from 2007. So, what is Monsanto conserving more of? Certainly not biodiversity, human health, wildlife, pollinators or the soil, which are all adversely affected by pesticide use.

The claims of “producing more” that Monsanto touts in the NPR ads are also completely unfounded. Not a single GM crop has been commercially introduced that is intended to increase yield. Agronomists and plant scientists made far greater advances in yields through conventional breeding methods in the 20th century than they ever have with GM crops. In fact, there have been several studies which show that there are actually yield losses associated with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans. What biotech companies have been effective at doing is crafting media messages that persuade the average person to believe that their crops increase yield and that without GM crops we simply couldn’t feed the world.

In fact, GM crops account for less than 3% of total agricultural acreage globally. Five countries in North and South America account for more than 90% of total global acreage, with the United States, Argentina and Brazil making up 80% of total global GM crop acreage. In Africa, only two countries-South Africa and Burkina Faso-allow the commercial planting of GM crops, which are minimally grown. Less than 3% of the cropland in India and China is planted with GM crops, and in India most of that is cotton- not food. This leads me to my next point- four cash crops- soy, maize, cotton and canola make up almost 100% of GM crops planted worldwide. Of these commodity crops, most are used to make biofuels, processed foods, animal feed, and vegetable oils-they are not fed directly to people in their whole form. The bottom line? GM crops are not feeding the world, and they are not enabling us to produce more.

Perhaps the most important consideration for Monsanto’s ads on Marketplace is the unethical implications behind their words. They want us to believe their crops are feeding hungry children in Africa and that they are allowing farmers to use fewer chemicals. But their actions demonstrate that their concern lies otherwise- in their profits. In 2008, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) a global group of scientists, NGOs, private sector officials, and country governments initiated by the World Bank and the United Nations released its long awaited report, “Agriculture at a Crossroads”. The report painted a grim picture for food security and described the harsh reality of the challenges that agriculture and food systems must overcome to ensure food security in the future. What made the IAASTD report so groundbreaking was its unprecedented questioning of the role of GM crops to aid in food security and environmental improvement. IAASTD authors paraphrased the conclusions of the report in Science stating, “The assessment found GM crops appropriate in some contexts, unpromising in others, and unproven in many more. No conclusive evidence was found that GM crops have so far offered solutions to the broader socioeconomic dilemmas faced by developing countries.”

This was certainly not the golden ticket for GM crops that Monsanto hoped for from the IAASTD. So, what did they do? They bailed. The failure of biotech corporations to influence the IAASTD led Monsanto and Syngenta to withdraw from meetings and collaboration just a few months before the final release of their report. According to the journal Nature, which published a story on the issue titled “Deserting the Hungry?”, such actions resulted after drafts devoted more space to biotechnology’s risk than its benefits and failed to recognize that GM crops produced higher yields. In a year with unprecedented world hunger, Monsanto pulled out of the most comprehensive international attempts to examine the problems and solutions of the situation. And, they made 11 billion dollars the same year, mostly from their Roundup chemicals and biotech seeds-both which they increased in price at the height of a global food crisis. So, producing more and conserving more, or deserting the hungry?

I encourage American Public Media and all other news media services to think about their principles, ethics, and mission statements and consider applying these principles to the ads they are running.

Like many others in the climate movement, I have been waiting for weeks (well, years actually) for broad and sweeping climate change legislation. Back in January the economy captured Congressional attention and I knew global warming legislation would simply have to wait. Finally, yesterday, Representatives Markey and Waxman introduced their “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″, a wide-reaching cap and trade initiative with more ambitious emission reductions (83% below 2005 levels by 2050) than President Obama had even advocated for. For that, and for a variety of other progressive initiatives including those for energy efficiency, green jobs, and climate change adaptation, the bill is commendable. But, Markey and Waxman had one large oversight in drafting the bill — they cut the crap, literally.

Buried about halfway through the monster 648 page draft is a crucial statement: “controlling emissions in small as well as large amounts is essential to prevent, slow the pace of, reduce the threats from, and mitigate global warming and its adverse effects.” I couldn’t agree more, which is why I was shocked to see that the bill fails to address greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, factory farms, and animal manure whatsoever — and even goes the extra mile to specifically exempt the entire sector from any type of regulation.

Under the proposed legislation the agricultural sector is explicitly exempted under the definition of “capped sector”. Since capped sectors will be those that will be required to reduce emissions under the compliance portion of the bill, this means that the entire sector has been given a free pass from any type of emissions reductions. Unfortunately, the bill goes one step farther and makes additional exemptions under the uncapped sector section as well, where sources of emissions will be listed and then, in several years, formed into standards and promulgated into regulation. The bill specifically designates that sources of methane emissions be a separate category of this uncapped sources list, but then explicitly exempts enteric fermentation (i.e. livestock burps and farts) from being included on this list. Enteric fermentation is literally the largest source of methane emissions in the entire country. This means that not only are livestock left out of this bill, but the largest source of methane emissions would be left out of all future regulations for methane emissions in the United States from the uncapped sector.

So, big deal right? Who really cares about cow farts anyway when we have coal fired power plants to deal with? I respectfully disagree. Energy and climate policy that doesn’t consider the impact of our food and agricultural systems on greenhouse gas emissions is missing a big chunk of the problem. Collectively, our entire food system and associated emissions may be contributing up to 1/3 of global greenhouse emissions by some scientific accounts. Domestically, the agricultural sector (which doesn’t include things like food processing, packaging and transportation) accounts for nearly 2/3 of all nitrous oxide emissions, which by the Markey and Waxman bill is 298 times as potent as CO2. About 1/3 of all methane emissions (which is 25 times as potent as CO2) in the United States are solely from enteric fermentation and manure management.

To put it in perspective, according to the US EPA 2009 Draft GHG Inventory the agriculture sector produces 413 Tg of carbon dioxide equivalents a year, and the entire Industrial Processes sector produces 328 Tg of carbon dioxide equivalents. Let’s couple that 328 Tg with the methane emissions produced by coal mining and petroleum systems (collectively about 86 Tg of carbon dioxide equivalents) and then we’re talking about what the Markey and Waxman bill exempts. If you think agricultural emissions don’t matter, ask yourself if you would feel differently if the bill completely exempted the entire industrial processes sector, and certain emissions from coal mining and petroleum.

What is so interesting about the bill is the lengths it goes to make sure that agriculture is uniquely left out of the regulations. For example, agriculture does play a prominent role in the bill as a source of potential renewable electricity credits with manure digesters and crop biofuels. But while ethanol production plants are explicitly included as an industrial sector that will be regulated under the cap, livestock and manure management are not. So, in essence, biofuels may be eligible for offset credits, but they’ll also be responsible for the emissions they may be producing as well. But, not so for livestock manure, which will be eligible for offsets, but not actually have to do anything to reduce its emissions in the first place. It should also be noted that in the forthcoming EPA’s proposed mandatory GHG reporting rule, manure management is specifically identified as a source of emissions that would be required to report their emissions. This means the problem is not that we can’t measure agriculture and livestock emissions- we obviously can if we can give potential offset credits to the sector and the EPA is going to require that they report emissions.

To be more hopeful, I will say that the bill does have excellent standards in place to regulate other food system greenhouse gas emissions. The bill would require emissions standards for heavy duty nonroad equipment including tractors, combines and other heavy agricultural machinery. As well, nearly every food processing industry would be included under the cap if they produced above the threshold of 25,000 tons of CO2 equivalents a year. This would include everything from animal slaughter facilities to wet corn milling and snack food processing plants. In the Green Jobs section, the bill specifically notes the importance of establishing education and training programs for sustainable agriculture and farming and sustainable culinary practices. And, the bill includes fantastic initiatives to establish a National Climate Change Adaptation Council, which would examine the broad impacts of climate change on a variety of areas including agriculture.

But, all of those things are hard to appreciate when the larger agricultural and livestock sector is completely exempted from reducing their emissions. Agriculture is unique in the climate change debate because it is both a source of emissions and a potential for mitigation. We clearly can not forget the role that sustainable agriculture can play in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, and the ways that farmers can and should be a part of our climate change initiatives and policies. But, rewarding the beneficial part of the system without acknowledging the downside to our industrial agricultural practices is only rewarding the largest and most polluting parts of our food system. A cap on agriculture in this bill would not hurt small-scale family farmers, which would be nowhere near triggering the threshold for regulation. Instead, it would target the biggest sources of agricultural emissions from large-scale corporate factory farms that are the largest emitters in the sector. And, just like big coal needs to clean up its act, so does big ag. As we move forward with the draft discussion of the bill I hope that Congress can recognize the importance of regulating agriculture in our climate change legislation just as any other sector should and will be regulated.

Posted in Climate & Energy, Food, Politics ]]>http://grist.org/article/2009-04-02-cut-crap-markey-and-waxman/feed/1cowbutt.jpgCow butts.Fox News story advocates for reducing meat consumption to combat global warminghttp://grist.org/article/2009-03-20-fox-news-story-advocates/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/2009-03-20-fox-news-story-advocates/#commentsSat, 21 Mar 2009 06:53:56 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2009-03-20-fox-news-story-advocates/]]>This week, as I sorted through my inbox and overflowing number of “google alerts,” one particular story from Fox News caught my attention. In a decidedly personal yet informative piece, Andy Kroll of Fox News outlined the reasons why he was going to reduce his meat consumption by 75 percent in the upcoming months. The tipping point for him? The significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions associated with animal production globally.

What is so inviting and simultaneously exciting about Andy’s article is the realistic and informative approach he takes to a very complicated issue. He notes the United Nations figure regarding animal production — 18 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions are associated from animal production [PDF]. This includes all of the myriad emissions linked to animal production: pesticides and fertilizers required to grow feed crops, methane emissions from cows burping, and all of the stuff that comes out their back end, plus the energy required to transport, slaughter, package, and distribute animal products.

To put that 18 percent figure in context — 14 percent of emissions come from transportation. And, as Andy thoughtfully notes — many of us find it difficult to cut back on driving, but we do have significant control over our diets every day. Research published in the journal Earth Interactions in 2006 found that a meat-eater consuming the average American caloric diet produced 700 kg of CO2 more than a plant-eater in a year. In context, this is the difference between driving a Prius and a midsize sedan like a Toyota Camry. So if you think you have to spend a bunch of money to upgrade your car to be climate-friendly, try looking to your plate first.

What the article does so well is take an issue that, to date, has actually drawn considerable sensationalist criticism, and put it on a level that people can actually understand and use. When the U.N. released the report Livestock’s Long Shadow back in 2006, from which the 18 percent figure came, vegetarian organizations rejoiced, but sadly few others really thought about the implications of the U.N. report.

Attempts to suggest that meat consumption be reduced in the United States as a means to fight climate change and greenhouse gas emissions were dismissed as left-wing propaganda and vegetarian agendas. But the reality of the U.N.’s report, along with dozens of subsequent peer-reviewed scientific articles, is that reducing meat consumption is one of the greatest things individuals can do to reduce their carbon footprint.

Andy presents a realistic option for making a difference — calculating your own meat consumption currently (for him about 20 meals a week containing meat) and reducing that figure by 75 percent. He is ambitious with such reductions, but even reducing your meat consumption by 25 percent can and will make a difference. While the article focuses on climate change environmental impacts in particular, there are also numerous other reasons to cut back on meat consumption.

In the United States, the EPA estimates that animals produce three times as much waste as humans, and that waste goes untreated before it is sprayed on our fields and washed into our streams. Downstream the added nutrients of animal wastes choke out oxygen from waterways and create eutrophic conditions, much like the ones that create the seasonal “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.

Meat production, especially at large scale factory farms throughout the country, has had a notable impact on rural communities. Significant odors, groundwater contamination, and farmworker health problems have plagued pockets of our country including eastern North Carolina, central California, and the upper Midwest for untold years, as factory farms have gotten bigger. And, since the average American eats more than 200 pounds of meat a year — far more than any other country in the world — there are certainly potential health benefits to cutting back on the meat. Clearly, meat consumption isn’t just an environmental issue.

Climate change legislation is coming down the pipeline quickly throughout the country, and to date most of the discussion has focused on cap-and-trade initiatives to regulate transportation, electricity, and manufacturing sectors. The Fox News article highlights the need to also consider the role of animal production and food-system emissions overall in our climate change policies. But for the moment, it makes clear that we don’t need to wait around for policymakers to tell us how to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in this country. We make decisions everyday about our own carbon footprint which can actually have a real impact. I hope we can all join Andy in looking no farther than our plates to start making real changes today.

Posted in Food ]]>http://grist.org/article/2009-03-20-fox-news-story-advocates/feed/0Americans care about global warming, but don’t see how it connects to other environmental problemshttp://grist.org/article/polling-my-leg/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/polling-my-leg/#commentsSun, 15 Mar 2009 09:47:43 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/polling-my-leg/]]>A new poll shows that Americans do care about global warming, but don’t seem to realize how prevalent it really is.

This week Gallup released data from its latest poll on global warming indicating that more Americans — 41 percent, the highest number since 1998 — believe that global warming is exaggerated. This sounds like cause for concern similar to what I wrote about back in January when polls indicated more Americans believe global warming is caused by planetary trends than humans. But in fact, the data on this poll isn’t as cut and dry as some of the media wants to insinuate. While the poll did find a slight decrease in the number of Americans who are a “fair amount” or “great deal” concerned about global warming, 60 percent of Americans still identify themselves this way.

The irony in the way the story was reported is that the poll shows the majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is accurately portrayed by the media. Yet, some stories went on to report the story as, “Americans doubting global warming.” It indicates yet another instance in which the media spun the story of global warming in a confusing and misleading way. What would the effect have been if the story read, “Majority of Americans believe seriousness of global warming is accurate.” Perhaps the increased American confusion and doubt about global warming is simply a byproduct of misconstrued media messages marked by sensationalist titles.

The poll is fascinating, though, for other very significant reasons. First, the poll notes that all of the increase in cynicism came from Americans 30 years old or older. Does that mean that America’s youth are increasingly recognizing the importance and significance of global warming? As a participant and panelist at Powershift in Washington D.C. two weeks ago, in which more than 10,000 of America’s youth came together to stand up for climate change policies, I have no doubt that this is true. The youth of our nation are slated to inherit the myriad problems of global warming and they are increasingly recognizing the importance of climate change mitigation and adaptation as a broader part of our economic development and environmental protection.

I also don’t believe that the majority of Americans are failing to recognize the importance of global warming or are incapable of acting on it, but rather that they still may not fully grasp the ubiquitous nature of the crisis. This became apparent in the Gallup poll when respondents ranked global warming dead last among their environmental concerns. Topping the list of environmental woes was drinking water, soil and water contamination, air pollution, loss of rain forests and extinction of plants and animals. Yet the underlying theme among all of these concerns is the overarching pressure that rising temperatures have on impacting these issues.

Drinking water and all fresh water will continue to become one of the most important issues for survival in the 21st century, and increased warming will perpetuate evaporation and loss of water supplies. One of the greatest sources of soil and water contamination in this country is from synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides, which not only create significant environmental “dead zones” in our waterways but poison drinking water supplies in rural areas. The production, transport, and application of agricultural chemicals contribute notable amounts of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide (310 times as potent at carbon dioxide) emissions to the atmosphere; in fact, nearly two thirds of all human-caused nitrous oxide emissions are from agriculture. The loss of our rainforests, often for the expansion of agricultural land to grow biofuels and animal feed, is releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, further exacerbating warming temperatures. The polar bear is directly threatened with dwindling populations almost entirely due to the loss of arctic sea ice as a result of increased atmospheric temperatures. And air pollution? Are people really failing to recognize that air pollution and global warming are inherently connected?

Perhaps if the American people began to better understand the broad effects of warming temperatures they would recognize its seriousness. Nearly every environmental problem we are facing today is perpetuated or exacerbated by increased global temperatures and the other weather events that will ensue. In tough economic times it is especially difficult to grasp the importance of environmental preservation, which is often viewed at direct odds with economic development. This week, President Obama defied those stereotypes by appointing Van Jones as his green jobs guru, tasked to simultaneously increase environmental protection and economic stimulus. I have hope that he can not only rise to the task but also tie together environment and economy in a way that we can all better understand.

Posted in Politics ]]>http://grist.org/article/polling-my-leg/feed/0How biotech companies control research on GMO cropshttp://grist.org/article/genetically-modified-science/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/genetically-modified-science/#commentsMon, 23 Feb 2009 01:15:34 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=28467Recently I wrote about the dwindling faith the American people seem to have in science, seemingly choosing to either ignore or disregard the latest research on global warming. Why has science lost its place in the hearts and minds of America? Has the media been a culprit? Did the Bush administration dismiss one too many scientific reports? But now, a recent article leaves me wondering if science has not only taken a backseat to American thoughts, but a backseat to industry influence as well.

In Thursday's New York Times, Andrew Pollack reported on how crop scientists throughout the country have been unable to perform adequate testing and research on biotech crops, because of the strong hand of biotechnology companies. Pollack was likely alerted to the story after a group of 26 corn insect scientists from 16 different states anonymously submitted a statement to the EPA on a docket regarding the evaluation of insect resistance risks with a brand of Pioneer Hi-Bred biotech corn. In their statement the scientists noted that they chose to remain anonymous because "virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research."

Remaining anonymous allowed the scientists to fully express their real concern with biotech crop research controlled by the industry through technology and stewardship agreements, required to be signed for the purchase of genetically modified seeds. Such agreements are the same that farmers must sign before purchasing seeds, which prevent them from replanting seeds or thus risk legal action. The scientist coalition noted that such agreements "explicitly prohibit research" and "inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry." The effects were clearly stated -- "no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology." Yet the scientific research community has not always been this way. Before patents were granted for life forms, the Plant Variety Protection Act passed by Congress in 1970 allowed farmers to save and replant protected seeds and gave scientists the right to research protected varieties.

]]>Recently I wrote about the dwindling faith the American people seem to have in science, seemingly choosing to either ignore or disregard the latest research on global warming. Why has science lost its place in the hearts and minds of America? Has the media been a culprit? Did the Bush administration dismiss one too many scientific reports? But now, a recent article leaves me wondering if science has not only taken a backseat to American thoughts, but a backseat to industry influence as well.

In Thursday’s New York Times, Andrew Pollack reported on how crop scientists throughout the country have been unable to perform adequate testing and research on biotech crops, because of the strong hand of biotechnology companies. Pollack was likely alerted to the story after a group of 26 corn insect scientists from 16 different states anonymously submitted a statement to the EPA on a docket regarding the evaluation of insect resistance risks with a brand of Pioneer Hi-Bred biotech corn. In their statement the scientists noted that they chose to remain anonymous because “virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research.”

Remaining anonymous allowed the scientists to fully express their real concern with biotech crop research controlled by the industry through technology and stewardship agreements, required to be signed for the purchase of genetically modified seeds. Such agreements are the same that farmers must sign before purchasing seeds, which prevent them from replanting seeds or thus risk legal action. The scientist coalition noted that such agreements “explicitly prohibit research” and “inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry.” The effects were clearly stated — “no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.” Yet the scientific research community has not always been this way. Before patents were granted for life forms, the Plant Variety Protection Act passed by Congress in 1970 allowed farmers to save and replant protected seeds and gave scientists the right to research protected varieties.

The problem lies in the control that biotech companies have over seeds, given to them by patent rights. Effectively, patent protection allows a company to determine who can purchase its product and for what purpose. Pollack’s article highlights this problem and details how biotech companies can freely deny permission for seed requests and even review scientific findings before they are published. In an arena where scientific funding has notably dwindled from the public sector, land-grant universities and scientists have increasingly relied on private funding for their research. The effect of this influence is now all too clear. Elson J. Shields, a professor of entomology at Cornell, out it bluntly: “People are afraid of being blacklisted.”

The Times article is reflective of a larger ongoing problem. In 2002 Nature published an article about an Ohio State University professor who was conducting research on biotech sunflowers. After her initial research indicated that the seed would allow wild sunflowers to proliferate as weeds, Pioneer Hi-Bred and Dow AgroSciences refused to grant her permission to use the seed for follow up studies. Something similar happened to William Meredith, a USDA geneticist, in the late 1990s when Monsanto was trying to bring its biotech cotton to market. Meredith was denied access to the seeds, since in order to obtain them he would have had to sign an agreement with Monsanto agreeing not to test them.

To fully understand how alarming the situation is, consider how biotech crops and foods make their way from lab to field to plate in the United States. The USDA does not conduct its own tests on biotech crop varieties when deregulating and approving them for planting in the United States. Instead, it relies on industry studies and data to access their safety on the environment and human health.

But if the industry is preventing real research from entering the scientific community, how much should we trust industry biotech studies? A 2003 study published in the journal Nutrition and Health examined peer-reviewed studies of animals fed genetically-engineered foods. Of the 10 studies identified, the five carried out in collaboration with the industry found no adverse health effects. But of the five independent studies, all found adverse effects after feeding lab animals genetically engineered food for only 10 to 14 days.

This latest declaration from a variety of scientists who work in biotech research should be yet another red flag about the biotech industry. As Upton Sinclair famously noted a century ago, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” So long as our public universities and scientists continue to be heavily funded by industry interests, we may continue to see inadequate environmental and human health studies about biotech crops. And so long as the U.S. government continues to rely on the industry to provide them with data, the potential adverse side effects of biotech crops will likely remain silent.

Posted in Food, Politics ]]>http://grist.org/article/genetically-modified-science/feed/5Poll shows more Americans do not believe global warming is result of man-made activityhttp://grist.org/article/losing-our-faith-in-science/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/losing-our-faith-in-science/#commentsTue, 27 Jan 2009 00:38:13 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=28014Amidst the chaos of the Inauguration events and Obama administration's transition, Rasmussen Reports conducted a global warming poll late last week. As I perused through the poll questions and responses I could barely believe what was reported: An increasing number of people do not think global warming is caused by human activity.

According to the poll, 44 percent of all people polled thought long-term planetary trends were the primary cause of global warming as opposed to the 41 percent of people who blamed human activity. In 2006, only 35 percent of people believed that global warming was caused by planetary trends. Overall, 41 percent of people polled stated global warming was a very serious problem, and 23 percent of people polled thought that it was a somewhat serious problem. Interesting though, according to Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of Democrats think global warming is a serious problem while only 18 percent of Republicans believe the same.

Affiliations aside, this news is not only disheartening, but it is also downright disturbing.

]]>Amidst the chaos of the Inauguration events and Obama administration’s transition, Rasmussen Reports conducted a global warming poll late last week. As I perused through the poll questions and responses I could barely believe what was reported: An increasing number of people do not think global warming is caused by human activity.

According to the poll, 44 percent of all people polled thought long-term planetary trends were the primary cause of global warming as opposed to the 41 percent of people who blamed human activity. In 2006, only 35 percent of people believed that global warming was caused by planetary trends. Overall, 41 percent of people polled stated global warming was a very serious problem, and 23 percent of people polled thought that it was a somewhat serious problem. Interesting though, according to Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of Democrats think global warming is a serious problem while only 18 percent of Republicans believe the same.

Affiliations aside, this news is not only disheartening, but it is also downright disturbing.

A few weeks ago, I read an article detailing how legislators in Florida were wary to vote on a greenhouse gas reductions act since apparently some of Florida’s politicians were questioning the role of human activity in global warming. Perhaps the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should mail them a few hundred copies of their 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. I can understand that the average American doesn’t take the time to read the IPCC reports, but politicians? The IPCC specifically made a summary report just for policymakers.

Here’s the breakdown of the IPCC findings: Our atmosphere does go through “natural cycles” of temperature changes, but what people are failing to understand, or perhaps are choosing to ignore, is that the rate of warming that has occurred in the past 250 years has grossly accelerated. According to the IPCC, “The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores.” Further, “The atmospheric concentration of methane in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb) as determined from ice cores.” And finally, “The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide .. .and its rate of increase during the industrial era is very likely to have been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years.” The IPCC also clearly notes that these increases are the result of human activities, not “natural cycles.” The colorful IPCC graphs with sharp J-curves of greenhouse gas emissions show the trends quite clearly.

Several hundred of the world’s finest scientists came together to produce the IPCC report that undoubtedly demonstrates that global warming is happening and the result of human activity. Despite this, more Americans now believe global warming is caused by natural cycles than by people. How did this happen? Are they in denial? Have we lost our faith in science? Is the media inaccurately reporting the reality of the situation? We need to open our eyes and see things for what they are, especially as new evidence of global climate change continues to be announced nearly every week.

Wednesday, Nature published research which demonstrates that Antarctica is also warming. For many years scientists were unsure as to whether Antarctica was warming, especially in comparison to the North Pole, which has warmed more than 5°. But this new research shows that Antarctica is warming at about the same rate as the rest of the globe, which could have dramatic consequences for the massive ice shelves in the area. It is just one of the many reports already out this year which note not only warming temperatures, but also potentially dramatic consequences. As President Barack Obama settles into the White House, I hope he heard this news and felt compelled to act.

The Rasmussen poll on global warming found that 46 percent of people polled, compared to an opposing 32 percent, believe that there is a direct conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. I respectfully disagree, and I believe President Obama does as well. I am hopeful that our new administration will embrace independent science and research in a way that promotes effective policies. President Obama has voiced his dedication to managing our economy in a way that will also promote environmental protection.

Our country needs help both economically and environmentally, and no longer should we believe that the two can not happen in harmony. Changing our economic system to one that embraces and promotes environmental protection will not only create jobs, but it also will result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Perhaps as more Americans find work in “green jobs,” they will realize the incredible opportunity we have to combat not only global warming, but also our failing economy at the same time. Such recognition will enable us to link our economic development with environmental protection in the public consciousness, and hopefully restore the American faith in our government and economy, and also in science itself.

Posted in Politics ]]>http://grist.org/article/losing-our-faith-in-science/feed/0Organic farming beats genetically engineered corn as response to rising global temperatureshttp://grist.org/article/food-security-and-global-warming-monsanto-versus-organic/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/food-security-and-global-warming-monsanto-versus-organic/#commentsSat, 17 Jan 2009 04:57:19 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=27893This week Sciencepublished research ($ub. req'd) detailing the vast, global food-security implications of warming temperatures. The colored graphics are nothing short of terrifying when you realize the blotches of red and orange covering the better part of the globe indicate significantly warmer summers in coming decades.

The implications of the article are clear -- we need to be utilizing agricultural methods and crops that can withstand the potential myriad impacts of global climate change, especially warmer temperatures. The article significantly notes, "The probability exceeds 90 percent that by the end of the century, the summer average temperature will exceed the hottest summer on record throughout the tropics and subtropics. Because these regions are home to about half of the world's population, the human consequences of global climate change could be enormous."

Whether you believe global warming is part of a "natural cycle" or a man-made phenomenon is irrelevant. The bottom line is that our earth is rapidly warming, and this is going to drastically affect our food supply. We must undertake both the enormous task of reducing our carbon emissions now to avert the worst, while at the same time adapting our society to the vast and multitudinous effects of unavoidable global climate change. Failing to do either will, as the Science article indicates, have dire effects on a large portion of our world's population.

Determining the best course of action for ensuring food security in the face of global climate change remains a challenging task. Recognizing that climate change is slated to affect developing countries and small-scale farmers the most is a crucial point. Such understanding enables people to realize that viable solutions must be accessible, affordable, and relevant to the billions of small-scale farmers in the developing world. Unfortunately, it appears that some of the solutions on the table fail to meet these criteria.

Last week, Monsanto made a big public relations splash by filing documents with the FDA regarding a drought-tolerant GM corn variety it is developing with a German company, BASF. Monsanto claims that in field trials, the corn got 6-10 percent higher yields in drought-prone areas last year, but the release is extremely short on details. Regardless of the reality, Monsanto is presenting the corn as a way to help improve on-farm productivity in other parts of the world, notably Africa.

Yet, absent from the media hype were the many technical and social problems with Monsanto's corn.

]]>This week Sciencepublished research ($ub. req’d) detailing the vast, global food-security implications of warming temperatures. The colored graphics are nothing short of terrifying when you realize the blotches of red and orange covering the better part of the globe indicate significantly warmer summers in coming decades.

The implications of the article are clear — we need to be utilizing agricultural methods and crops that can withstand the potential myriad impacts of global climate change, especially warmer temperatures. The article significantly notes, “The probability exceeds 90 percent that by the end of the century, the summer average temperature will exceed the hottest summer on record throughout the tropics and subtropics. Because these regions are home to about half of the world’s population, the human consequences of global climate change could be enormous.”

Whether you believe global warming is part of a “natural cycle” or a man-made phenomenon is irrelevant. The bottom line is that our earth is rapidly warming, and this is going to drastically affect our food supply. We must undertake both the enormous task of reducing our carbon emissions now to avert the worst, while at the same time adapting our society to the vast and multitudinous effects of unavoidable global climate change. Failing to do either will, as the Science article indicates, have dire effects on a large portion of our world’s population.

Determining the best course of action for ensuring food security in the face of global climate change remains a challenging task. Recognizing that climate change is slated to affect developing countries and small-scale farmers the most is a crucial point. Such understanding enables people to realize that viable solutions must be accessible, affordable, and relevant to the billions of small-scale farmers in the developing world. Unfortunately, it appears that some of the solutions on the table fail to meet these criteria.

Last week, Monsanto made a big public relations splash by filing documents with the FDA regarding a drought-tolerant GM corn variety it is developing with a German company, BASF. Monsanto claims that in field trials, the corn got 6-10 percent higher yields in drought-prone areas last year, but the release is extremely short on details. Regardless of the reality, Monsanto is presenting the corn as a way to help improve on-farm productivity in other parts of the world, notably Africa.

Yet, absent from the media hype were the many technical and social problems with Monsanto’s corn.

A little over a year ago, the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics held a conference specific to drought and drought-tolerant crops. As a follow up, the Australian government’s Grains Research and Development Corporation published a piece detailing the research shared and lessons learned from the conference. One topic addressed was the potential of GM drought-tolerant varieties. In the analysis stated, “The most notable and problematic (effect) is the tendency of drought-tolerant GM lines to not perform as well under favourable conditions. This appears to be the case for CIMMYT’s GM wheat and Monsanto’s GM corn. The flaw is a profound one. It amounts to shifting the yield losses experienced in dry seasons onto the good years.” In essence, farmers might get a small bump in yield during droughts, but will suffer yield losses when conditions are favorable. Considering that climate scientists continually point to increased erratic weather patterns as a symptom of global warming, this reality is clearly disastrous. Surely there must be better solutions that increase production under all weather conditions

One promising solution appeared in an article published in BioScience in 2005. The authors outlined the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial, a long-term comparison of organic and conventional farming systems conducted between 1981 and 2002. Significantly, the trials found that organic production yielded equivalently to conventional systems after a transition period. Yet even more importantly, Rodale found that in drought conditions in which rainfall was 30 percent less than normal, organic systems yielded 28 to 34 percent higher than conventional systems. Rodale equates the yield gain to increased water retention as a result of higher soil organic carbon. Water volumes percolating through the various systems were 15-20 percent higher in the organic systems as compared with the conventional systems over the 12 year period.

The BioScience article additionally noted that the organic systems used 28 to 32 percent fewer energy inputs, retained soil carbon and soil nitrogen better, and offered a higher profitability over conventional systems. What is so significant about this research is that it demonstrates the ability of organic agriculture to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions with fewer energy inputs and withstand climate change impacts like drought with greater efficacy.

Most importantly, it offers an economical and accessible form of agriculture for billions of small-scale farmers. Scaling up agricultural development in rural areas like Africa can be accomplished with organic methods like manure, compost, and cover crops. Even the United Nations recognized the opportunity presented by organic production in a report late last year. Conventional breeding and improved seeds are also part of the solution. Between 1939 and 2005, conventional breeding contributed significantly to an almost six-fold yield-gain in corn in the U.S.

This point is crucial, since the seeds Monsanto is planning to release will be owned by the company and sold at exorbitant prices. GMO seeds cost from two to over four times as much as conventional seed varieties, and the disparity is increasing. How will small-scale farmers pay for such seeds? How will they pay for the chemicals and synthetic fertilizers necessary for such production? Shouldn’t we be looking for solutions that are viable and realistic for those people who are most food insecure? Monsanto does not have the answers here, but organic methods can and should be a big part of the solution.

The future of food security in the face of warming temperatures cannot be based on a system of profits and research that fails to address the needs of food-insecure farmers. We need real solutions that will enable farmers to maintain and increase yields with those materials and techniques already available to them with little extra cost: animal manure, increased irrigation opportunities, cover crops, compost, and integrated pest-management systems. Organic agriculture will reduce, mitigate, and adapt to climate change impacts and still remain accessible and economic to the billions of subsistence farmers around the world. If we really want to fight the food crisis, let’s start investing in and promoting organic production today to ensure better climate adaptation in the future.

Posted in Food ]]>http://grist.org/article/food-security-and-global-warming-monsanto-versus-organic/feed/0Burger King launches film Whopper Virgins, simplifies U.S. to land of fast foodhttp://grist.org/article/if-they-have-it-their-way-theyll-supersize-the-world/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/if-they-have-it-their-way-theyll-supersize-the-world/#commentsFri, 09 Jan 2009 07:24:59 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=27743In the past year or so, I have had the opportunity to meet and experience a vast variety of inspiring food, environmental, and agricultural people and places. I met small-farmers in Ethiopia experimenting with pit composting instead of synthetic fertilizers. I shared meals with activists and writers in the sustainable food movement like Tom Philpott and Anna Lappé. Perhaps most exciting has been the increasing interest in sustainable food and agriculture throughout this country and among my family and friends. Helping my parents start composting, sharing books with friends, and watching the enthusiasm for a "Farmer in Chief" left me hopeful and excited at the end of 2008.

My vision came to a screeching halt when I saw a television ad during the holidays that left me laughing: Burger King trounces around the world feeding Whoppers to unsuspecting indigenous peoples in hopes of spreading the gospel of fast food. What a great parody, I thought! Who could have thought up such an ironic idea? And as the website for Whopper Virgins flashed on the screen, I had a sinking feeling that, like those high-fructose corn syrup ads, perhaps this Burger King film was no parody.

It turns out that the ad was actually an excerpt of a longer seven-minute film. The very concept of this idea -- flying around the world, feeding hamburgers to people who have never eaten hamburgers -- is in itself strange. For the first half of the film, the crew travels to Romania where they feed utterly confused people Whoppers and Big Macs from nearby restaurant locations. Strangely enough, it seems like the same number of people has no preference or prefers the Big Mac as compared to the Whopper.

]]>In the past year or so, I have had the opportunity to meet and experience a vast variety of inspiring food, environmental, and agricultural people and places. I met small-farmers in Ethiopia experimenting with pit composting instead of synthetic fertilizers. I shared meals with activists and writers in the sustainable food movement like Tom Philpott and Anna Lappé. Perhaps most exciting has been the increasing interest in sustainable food and agriculture throughout this country and among my family and friends. Helping my parents start composting, sharing books with friends, and watching the enthusiasm for a “Farmer in Chief” left me hopeful and excited at the end of 2008.

My vision came to a screeching halt when I saw a television ad during the holidays that left me laughing: Burger King trounces around the world feeding Whoppers to unsuspecting indigenous peoples in hopes of spreading the gospel of fast food. What a great parody, I thought! Who could have thought up such an ironic idea? And as the website for Whopper Virgins flashed on the screen, I had a sinking feeling that, like those high-fructose corn syrup ads, perhaps this Burger King film was no parody.

It turns out that the ad was actually an excerpt of a longer seven-minute film. The very concept of this idea — flying around the world, feeding hamburgers to people who have never eaten hamburgers — is in itself strange. For the first half of the film, the crew travels to Romania where they feed utterly confused people Whoppers and Big Macs from nearby restaurant locations. Strangely enough, it seems like the same number of people has no preference or prefers the Big Mac as compared to the Whopper.

Frankly, I don’t see the point. Is this supposed to make me want to go to Burger King? Interestingly enough, throughout the entire film not a single person eats more than a few bites of his or her burger. Perhaps they intuitively knew how ridiculous the entire concept is.

Reality aside, the film attempts to romanticize fast food as the only real American food culture. They throw around phrases like “culinary culture,” “appetizing burger culture,” and “phenomenon” as if every American wakes up in the morning, throws two burgers in the frying pan, and bows down to worship Ronald McDonald and that creepy Burger King guy. While the film aims to achieve some type of artistic cross between adventure and food documentary, they fail completely at doing so.

When the crew flies to Thailand and Greenland to spread the burger gospel, they bring along their own portable Burger King grill, flown in by a helicopter. I don’t even want to think about how they got the ingredients for a Whopper to such remote places. But as the film progresses and the crew continues to share Whopper goodness with the world, the real irony begins. The Americans offer up Whoppers and many people actually refuse to eat them. One man in Greenland actually professes that he likes his seal meat better. And when the locals offer up their food — colorful homemade dishes piping hot and full of vegetables and rice — the American crew devours it eagerly. I never once see any member of the American crew take a single bite of a Whopper.

What is the point of this film? Is Burger King testing markets in Greenland? Do they think Americans are going to buy Whoppers because a woman in Thailand said she liked them? And what about the health and climate impacts of this type of food? I doubt that the crew took the time to tell them that if they actually ate the whole Whopper they consumed 40 grams of fat. They also probably failed to mention the greenhouse gas emissions tied to animal production (18 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions according to the U.N.) or the other environmental pollution problems associated with mass-produced animals. And I wonder if they bothered to note that the beef they were eating was probably confined in its own feces for the better part of its life.

Don’t get me wrong — I love ethnic food, and I think that sharing food and recipes are some of the positive aspects of growing inter-cultural relationships. But what’s so disheartening about this film is the presumption that America has nothing better to offer. This film emphasizes the already hardened stereotype that all Americans are fat people and eat fast food. It is an insult to the American culinary traditions to suggest that our hamburgers are the only food traditions we can outsource. What about our New England seafood, Southern Cajun, and Tex-Mex cuisines? What about our burgeoning farmers markets, young farmers, and urban gardens? I hate to think that the only image school children in Romania have of the United States is a Big Mac and a Whopper.

Posted in Food ]]>http://grist.org/article/if-they-have-it-their-way-theyll-supersize-the-world/feed/0New research demonstrates that higher infant mortality rates surround CAFOshttp://grist.org/article/bad-meat-bad-air-bad-health-why-do-we-still-have-cafos/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/bad-meat-bad-air-bad-health-why-do-we-still-have-cafos/#commentsSat, 22 Nov 2008 05:50:14 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=26984]]>Thanks to Proposition 2, Californians will soon phase out some of the most egregious confining animal conditions. However the rest of the country continues to utilize concentrated animal feeding operations for the production of meat, poultry and dairy products.

CAFOs are industrial facilities that are designed to produce the most amount of meat in the shortest amount of time. In practice this means confining animals tightly together, often in unsanitary conditions, without access to the outdoors. According to the EPA, CAFOs divide into small, medium or large distinctions depending on the number of animals these facilities are confining. What’s most interesting is that the “large” CAFOs are not restricted to an upper limit of animals. So, for example, a large CAFO raising cows has “1,000 or more” heads of cattle. For broiler chickens the number is an astounding “125,000 or more.” As far as I can tell, there is nothing to stop a large CAFO from having thousands or even hundreds of thousands of animals confined in the same small space.

The animal abuses associated with this type of confinement seem obvious. Cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys and other animals need the same type of space and fresh air that human beings do. Crowding them together and never letting them see the light of day is certainly inhibiting their natural inclinations as sentient beings. But we should care about CAFOs for reasons far greater than animal abuses, for they abuse our own environment and the health of our children.

This week, Stacy Sneeringer, a professor at Wellesley College, published research, which documented the impact of CAFOs on infant mortality, in the respected American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Sneeringer looked at a 15-year period between 1982 and 1997, analyzing data on a county level for the number of CAFOs and animal units. Controlling for a host of variables, she found that changes in animal units directly compared to changes in infant mortality. The results concluded that for a 100,000 animal increase in a county, there were 123 more infant deaths under the age of one per 100,000 births and 100 more infant deaths under the age of 28 days per 100,000 births. As well, the research suggests that a doubling of animal production induces a 7.4 percent increase in infant mortality.

Sneeringer recognized that this phenomenon is a result of air pollution, most likely from ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. These two gases are toxic pollutants that also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Hydrogen sulfide is also responsible for deaths annually as farmworkers enter poorly ventilated manure containment systems and die almost instantly. As the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production indicated in their final report earlier this year, “facilities can be harmful to workers, neighbors, and even those living far from the facilities through air and water pollution, and via the spread of disease. Workers in and neighbors of [these] facilities experience high levels of respiratory problems, including asthma.” This is significant for policy since most of the regulations on CAFOs to date have been implemented under the Clean Water Act — not the Clean Air Act.

The research also looked at the percent change in animal units by county between the 15-year period. The results show what might be expected: low income and rural areas have been adversely impacted by CAFOs. The Northeast and upper Midwest had an overall decrease in CAFOs, while Appalachia, the Midwest, and Central California had significant increases. These facilities are one of the newest forms of environmental injustice.

This research is timely and important as we all look toward a new administration, and President-elect Obama decides who will help him run our country. Obama has openly stated that he wants strict rules on CAFOs to better regulate both air and water pollution. Of equal importance, is his stance on limiting Environmental Quality Incentives Program funding for large livestock operations, which currently allows huge CAFOs to receive as much as $450,000 a year. Instead, Obama supports “reinstating a strict cap on the size of the livestock operations that can receive EQIP funding so that the largest polluters have to pay for their own environmental clean up.”

It’s a big step in the right direction, but we shouldn’t stop there. Large CAFOs are disasters for this country. They pollute our air and water, taint our food supply, devastate rural communities and human health, and perpetuate animal abuses that the American people have clearly rejected. But CAFOs don’t have to be here. There are farmers throughout the country producing high-quality, grass-fed beef and animal products that are beneficial to our grasslands, kind to the animals, and profitable for rural residents. Let’s support them both economically and politically rather than give handouts to a system that so clearly is flawed beyond repair.

Posted in Food ]]>http://grist.org/article/bad-meat-bad-air-bad-health-why-do-we-still-have-cafos/feed/0Monsanto purchased a Brazilian sugarcane ethanol company for $290 millionhttp://grist.org/article/feed-a-company-starve-a-country/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/feed-a-company-starve-a-country/#commentsTue, 11 Nov 2008 22:17:07 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=26752]]>At a time when many people were questioning causes of the recent food crisis, many more were investigating how our food systems can move forward to sustainably feed the increasing world population. Recently, the U.N. Task Force on Trade, Environment and Development released a report touting the noteworthy yields and economic benefits of organic agriculture in Africa. Even recognizing that organic production offers significant hope for increasing food security. Another report released earlier this year by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development noted that a “radical change” was needed for agriculture, and that agricultural biotechnology held little promise. But corporations like Monsanto took a different approach to the problem — exploiting the food crisis as a means to sell more of their own biotech seeds.

Monsanto’s website is rife with articles discussing how its applications of biotechnology will supposedly solve the food crisis. Back in June, on the cusp of the World Food Summit, Monsanto announced plans to double crop-yields by 2030 with biotechnology. The New York Timescovered the story including a quote from a soybean genetics expert at the University of Nebraska who stated, “The hype-to-reality ratio of that one is essentially infinity … seeing an exponential change in the yield curve is unlikely.” But while experts were doubting Monsanto’s claims, a Business Week article quoted Hugh Grant, the head of Monsanto, saying, “That isn’t a feel-good thing … Satisfying the demand curve is a great business opportunity.” Grant may consider that quote a gaffe, but it was a telling sign regarding where Monsanto’s true interests lie: not with people, but with profits.

Last week Monsanto purchased Aly Participacoes Ltda, a Brazilian company involved in sugarcane breeding and sugarcane ethanol. Monsanto’s press release noted, “Global demands for raw sugar and biofuels are beginning to rise at a faster pace than the current production levels in sugarcane, a crop that is essential to meeting these demands,” said Carl Casale, executive vice president of global strategy and operations for Monsanto. Last time I checked, hungry people can’t eat ethanol and probably can’t afford sugar. So why, in the middle of a food crisis, is Monsanto investing in sugarcane ethanol?

Monsanto’s real focus is a profit margin that unfortunately comes at the expense of small-scale farmers and the environment. Last month Monsanto proudly noted on its website that its 2008 fiscal year net sales topped $11 billion. This is in excess of $3 billion more than net sales in 2007. Gross profit for 2008 is expected to pass $6 billion — nearly $2 billion more than in 2007. At the same time, seed and fertilizer prices dramatically increased throughout the world, and farmers in the developing world scrambled to pay for not only agricultural inputs, but also basic commodities. So, in 2008, as Haitians were eating dirt and food riots broke out throughout the world, Monsanto made record profits.

Monsanto claims that is is feeding the world and developing crops to increase yields. But why haven’t we seen a single commercially-available, nutritionally-enhanced GMO? And why do countless controlled trials show their flagship GMO, Roundup Ready soy, yields 5-10 percent less than conventional soybeans? Monsanto’s homepage also states the company is “reducing agriculture’s impact on our environment.” But, a groundbreaking study published in Science magazine this year noted that sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil is increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Other research based on USDA data shows that since the introduction of GMO crops in the United States, pesticide use increased by 122 million pounds between 1996 and 2004.

It is estimated that there are more hungry people in the world today than ever before. As this looming crisis continues unabated, Monsanto’s strategic move into the ethanol business demonstrates their commitment to profits over people. Their new role in the energy sector comes at the further expense of the environment and small-scale farmers throughout the world like those with whom I worked in Mozambique. I applaud the U.N. and others that are looking for real solutions to food security based on real situations and best practices. Monsanto is not solving our food crisis, and it’s not helping our environment. Sifting through its claims can be a bit daunting, but what seems increasingly clear is that the only real priority Monsanto has is to increase profits.

Posted in Business & Technology, Food ]]>http://grist.org/article/feed-a-company-starve-a-country/feed/0Big Ethanol descends on Africa for land, water, and sympathetic governmentshttp://grist.org/article/the-ethics-of-ethanol/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/the-ethics-of-ethanol/#commentsThu, 30 Oct 2008 04:41:17 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=26491]]>A few weeks ago I was in Mozambique for a conference that brought together NGOs, small-scale farmers, agricultural associations, and local media to discuss the impact of biofuel production in southern Africa. While the United States and other Western countries mandate ethanol quotas to supposedly reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, many farmers in Africa are questioning the reasons and implications for such programs. As the only American at the conference, I was continually asked about the real reasons behind America’s ethanol push and the truth about biofuels and greenhouse gas emissions. Most strikingly they wondered if the United States had considered trying to reduce its overall consumption of oil rather than simply trying to replace it with something else.

The questions of the attendees highlighted the sophisticated knowledge that people throughout the world have about the myriad complications of biofuels (known in Africa as agrofuels). Yet to date, most of the biofuel debate has been based on the environmental argument — do they actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Significant academic research published in Science magazine, the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, and the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics earlier this year clearly showed that ethanol production is creating increased greenhouse gas emissions and fertilizer pollution in the United States. As we continue to produce ethanol here at an unprecedented rate, we are in fact hurting the very thing we are trying to solve.

But the story looks far different in Mozambique and other parts of Africa. Biofuel production in Mozambique is not a Congressional mandate or an attempt to wean a country off of its massive oil dependence. In Africa, the biofuel frenzy is the newest form of colonialism, as corporations throughout the world fight for a stake in the fertile soils of an impoverished continent. With mining resources, precious jewels, and oil reserves drying up throughout Africa, many corporations are keenly positioning themselves to overtake huge quantities of land and water for biofuel production in developing countries.

In Mozambique I had the opportunity to hear directly from two farmers from Massingir in the Gaza Province of Mozambique. Augosto and Simiao had journeyed to the conference to tell the story of their region in hopes that someone there might be able to tell them what they could do. Working through a translator the men detailed the sugarcane production and ethanol processing plant brought into the area by a company called ProCana. As far as they knew, no contract had been signed in the local community with the company. The community had been told little about the project in the past several years but had been promised work, housing, infrastructure, and schools.

Yet, Augosto and Simiao made clear that none of this had actually happened. Instead, ProCana had been granted 30,000 hectares of land for biofuel production — land usually used for cattle and food production. The men also noted that the water for the sugarcane production was going to come from the Massingir dam — a crucial commodity for small farmers in a region that has been hit by serious droughts. The company had even built a road, without permission, straight through one of the farmer’s land. As I sat and listened to their mounting story, it became incredibly obvious how powerless they felt and how desperate they were to understand their situation. It caused me to wonder how this had happened and to investigate the story behind ProCana.

In October 2007, ProCana Limitada, a Mozambique company, signed an investment agreement with the government of Mozambique for the development of sugarcane production, the largest ethanol plant in Africa, infrastructure, and an electricity plant in Massingir. ProCana’s foreign partner is the Central African Mining and Exploration Company — a London-based company who pledged an investment of $510 million for the project. But, in the months after the contract was signed, 94 percent of ProCana was bought out by a new company — BioEnergy Africa, based in the British Virgin Islands.

Last month, BioEnergy Africa had an initial public offering on the London stock exchange, which earned more than $15 million. Despite the IPO, more than 70 percent of the company remains in private hands. According to public records on the company, the largest owner of BioEnergy Africa is CAMEC. It turns out that the only three staff listed on the BioEnergy Africa website also all work for CAMEC. Philippe Edmonds, a former English cricket star reportedly worth $45 million, started both companies and serves as their Chairman. CAMEC came under fire back in 2006 when it acquired $80 million worth of cobalt and copper mining assets in the Democratic Republic of Congo from Billy Rautenbach, who in return received up to a 20 percent share of CAMEC. It turns out Rautenbach is a fugitive from South Africa wanted on hundreds of charges including theft and fraud. When Rautenbach was deported from the Congo in 2007, CAMEC’s stock price plummeted. It was just a few short months later that CAMEC entered into its contract with the Mozambique government for the Massingir ethanol project.

In the past in Africa it was diamonds and copper, then oil, and now biofuels. Edmonds and his counterparts have their sights on Mozambique and other countries in Africa suitable to grow ethanol. Working through a new company, Edmonds seems set to be on the front edge of an ethanol scramble. He is not alone, as corporations throughout the world are looking for biofuel production land in Brazil, Indonesia, and other parts of Africa. And while biofuels are presented in many ways — an opportunity for small-scale farmers, a way for western countries to decrease their fossil fuel consumption, or a means for energy independence — they really look just like any other corporate profit opportunity. Unfortunately, those who stand to profit from this development are not the small-scale farmers trying to make a livelihood in Mozambique, the average Westerners hoping for reduced gasoline costs, or the politicians seeking energy independence. Instead, like so many other profit ventures, only a few will find success in biofuels.

Let’s be clear: I am not closing the door on biofuels entirely. I am intrigued by the potential for certain crops to be grown in a sustainable way that may actually offer environmental benefits, yet I question how this will impact land for food production and affect the developing world. Our energy needs are great and they demand our attention. But increasingly it seems that the “solutions” to our energy crisis are nothing more than the status quo dressed up differently. Biofuels are touted as an environmental option that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions; yet, research, especially on ethanol, shows this is not the case. They are discussed as a way for America to become “energy independent.” But are we really “independent”? The U.S. imported more than 64 million gallons of ethanol just in the month of July. And let’s not forget the small-scale farmers in the developing world who have been promised so much with so little returned.

Posted in Business & Technology, Climate & Energy, Food ]]>http://grist.org/article/the-ethics-of-ethanol/feed/0As Halloween nears, beware of the ‘fat-free’ candy cornhttp://grist.org/article/trick-or-treat1/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/trick-or-treat1/#commentsFri, 03 Oct 2008 03:15:16 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=25980]]>It’s the beginning of October and as the cooler temperatures and colorful leaves start to make an appearance, every retailer in America is switching storefronts to include pumpkins and of course, Halloween candy. The orange and black packages are cropping up in drugstores and supermarkets nationwide, and the glycemic high that lasts from Halloween through Easter has certainly begun. Since the lipid-phobia of the late 80s, high-sugar candies like gummy bears, gum drops, and candy corn have marketed themselves as “fat-free,” but, because most candy contains high-fructose corn syrup, recent research might make you reconsider those “fat-free” claims.

In June, I detailed the new marketing campaign of the Corn Refiners Association and the numerous health, environmental, and political concerns associated with corn in the United States. The full-page color ads that the industry trade group placed in major papers throughout the country turned out to be just the start of their efforts to convince us to embrace corn syrup. This past month, the Corn Refiners Association ramped up their marketing efforts to include television commercials featuring mothers, families, and children all excited about corn syrup. I could barely believe my eyes when I saw one of the ads, as the people on the screen embraced the sugary substitute with a zeal that no one should have for processed corn.

Aside from using more fertilizers and pesticides than any other crop and receiving political subsidies, corn has likely been one of the biggest culprits in the downward spiral of American health. While corn syrup has been nutritionally questionable for several decades, little research has been conducted on human volunteers, allowing the potential health effects of this sugary substitute to remain a mystery — and a main ingredient in packaged and processed foods. It is this lack of research that allowed the Corn Refiners Association to tout in their new campaign that sugar, honey, and high-fructose corn syrup are, “nutritionally … all the same.”

On their website, the Corn Refiners Association notes that the American Medical Association, “recently concluded that ‘high fructose corn syrup does not appear to contribute to obesity more than other caloric sweeteners.'” Would the AMA make such an assertion on behalf of corn syrup? On June 17, 2008, the AMA did in fact state that current research is not conclusive enough to indicate that high fructose corn syrup contributes to obesity more than other caloric sweeteners, but it also called for additional research. But don’t go reaching for the candy corn yet — a stamp of approval from the AMA doesn’t necessary mean so much. After all, this is the organization that accepted millions of dollars to advertise Sunbeam products back in the 1990s, and then settled out of court to avoid a lawsuit for a breach of contract. It is also the same organization that has historically earned millions of dollars from food, tobacco, and pharmaceutical advertisements in their peer-reviewed journal, and today it has a 22 page promotional guide for potential advertisers.

I have been wondering for the past two months about the cozy connection of these events — what would precipitate both the marketing campaing and the AMA’s statement in such short-order? In the June 2008 edition of the Journal of Nutrition, researchers from the University of Texas published new research that apparently caused both the Corn Refiners Association and the AMA to react at the exact same time. The research proved what many would suspect — that high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are not the same, and that the body reacts to them quite differently. Subjects were given sugary drinks with different concentrations of fructose and other sugars. The head researcher noted, “When fructose was present in the sweet drink, whether it was at 50 percent of its concentration, or 75 percent, we found that the fat synthesis rate was more than twice, almost three times the rate as when we just fed glucose alone.” In a nutshell, high-fructose corn syrup produces fat in your body at more than double the rate of sugar.

High-fructose corn syrup is clearly not nutritionally the same, and it’s time that doctors, politicians, and the American public acknowledge this. To be fair, the University of Texas study is just one small sample study. Yet, the first eleven citations in the peer-reviewed article are other studies with similar results. A quick Google search turned up dozens of other studies (and interestingly enough, the corporate advertiser for the term “high fructose corn syrup” on Google is the Corn Refiners Association’s website). Our bodies know the difference between sugar and corn, which rising rates of diabetes and obesity demonstrate quite well. Unfortunately, the Corn Refiners’ $30 million marketing campaign with flashy full-page ads may fool one too many people. With the AMA already speaking out against mounting scientific evidence, and corn subsidies firmly secured in the Farm Bill, American public health is brushed aside for corporate interests and money.

I remain hopeful however because every marketing scheme is based on an underlying panic. In 1999 the Corn Refiners Association had a banner year because Americans, per capita, consumed 63.7 pounds of high fructose corn syrup. It was an all time high that continues to decline. Since then, annual per capita consumption has decreased by 5.5 pounds — welcome news for the American waistline. As Americans continue to question the sources of their food and become savvy shoppers, I suspect corn refiners may have to rethink their advertising and perhaps even their entire business plan. In addition, as more cities and states like New York City and California begin to implement caloric labeling on foods in stores and restaurants, politicians will become increasingly aware of the role they play in the burgeoning size of the average American. While the next farm bill is another five years away, its not too early to start thinking about the ways it should work for the American people and our health. And the last thing America needs is more corn.

Do yourself a favor as you celebrate America’s ghoulish, candy holiday and look for treats that don’t contain high-fructose corn syrup. Your body will certainly thank you, and you might even be able to avoid a New Year’s resolution to lose five pounds next year.

Posted in Food, Living ]]>http://grist.org/article/trick-or-treat1/feed/4New research shows that ethanol will continue to increase the cost of wheathttp://grist.org/article/wheat-and-ethanol-they-just-dont-mix/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/wheat-and-ethanol-they-just-dont-mix/#commentsSat, 20 Sep 2008 08:02:54 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=25738]]>I, like most Americans, love bread. Crusty, warm, and fresh-baked bread is a carb overload I am willing to indulge in even if it means a few extra minutes of running. But the American love affair with all things baked might be at jeopardy. We all know that oil and water don’t mix, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that wheat and ethanol are a bad combination as well. New research from the University of Illinois indicates that the high prices for wheat, as well as corn and soy, are here to stay.

The research confirms what common sense should have indicated long ago: using land to grow crops for combustion as opposed to consumption, reduces the total amount of land devoted to growing food and increases food costs. Researchers Darrel Good and Scott Irwin — both professors of agriculture and consumer economics at the University of Illinois — note that the increase in ethanol production will have significant impacts on wheat, soy and corn prices for decades. In reality, this will mean continually rising prices across the board — meat and dairy that rely on corn and soy feed, baked and snack foods made with wheat and soy, corn and soy oils and anything cooked with those oils, and even vegetarian foods that rely on soy. In a nutshell, everything.

In fact, wheat prices are rising so quickly that even the industry is getting in on the action. In July the American Baking Association released a statement calling on Congress and the government to take actions to lower food prices. At the time, the Consumer Price Index showed that baked good prices had risen 2 percent in a one month period. White flour prices at the time had gone up by more than one-third within the year. ABA President and CEO Robb MacKie called on Congress and the government to act by, “repealing detrimental food for fuel ethanol mandates.”

While the University of Illinois research is appreciated, it is in fact nothing new. Biofuels, especially ethanol, have proven themselves to be not only unsustainable, but also to actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, as a Science article detailed back in January. But Good and Irwin go one step further to note that even switching from ethanol to a different type of biofuel is not the answer. Since land available for production is limited, switching biofuel crops would still be producing fuel instead of food, and prices will continue to increase. “We would have to steal land away from corn to grow a different energy-related crop.” Good said.

So what does this mean for America’s food prices and energy future? Well, unfortunately it looks like high prices are here to stay — at least until we give up our ethanol mandates. But more importantly, such research truly shows that America’s energy needs cannot be met at the expense of nutrition. In times of a food crisis and continually rising prices, we cannot continue to grow fuel instead of food. We do need a new generation of renewable energy initiatives in this country, but when ethanol is grown with oil-based fertilizers and pesticides, it cannot be considered renewable. America’s energy policies need to focus on wind, solar, geothermal, and other forms of truly sustainable and renewable energy options that have huge potential to provide power to our nation. A focus on green energy initiatives will create jobs, reform a crumbling grid system, and provide sustainable long-term energy solutions with limited greenhouse gas emissions, while keeping bread in our bellies.

Posted in Food ]]>http://grist.org/article/wheat-and-ethanol-they-just-dont-mix/feed/0New data show that 2008 organic food sales will reach $32.9 billionhttp://grist.org/article/the-organic-times-are-a-changin/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/the-organic-times-are-a-changin/#commentsFri, 12 Sep 2008 06:12:55 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=25561]]>As people from Haiti to Ethiopia are tragically struggling to cope with rising food prices, many are piecing together the reasons behind our recent price spikes. The culprits lie in everything from the switch to growing crops for biofuels to market speculation. The situation is complex and involves multiple factors. But as economists tally up the numbers and politicians scramble for solutions, others are beginning to wonder if this is the end for organic food as we know it. For years, the organic industry has seen sales growth in the double digits, far outpacing any other sector of food products. Articles have been popping up to question the feasibility of anyone of moderate means buying organic. It seems like the unfortunate and untrue “elitist” stamp might be making a comeback.

These assumptions miss one of the most important points of rising food prices — oil. Whether the food crisis is the result of biofuels pushing out agricultural land or investment speculation, it has proven one thing to be clear — as oil prices rise, food prices rise. We may not think about it very much, but our conventional food system is unfortunately based on fossil fuels, and we must face the reality that oil is not a renewable resource. With increasing fuel prices come increasing food prices, unless we change the way we farm.

On the organic front, fortunately the naysayers were wrong. Organic food growth has not taken the nose dive that some thought it would; in fact, it’s still thriving. A report out yesterday estimates that 2008 sales of natural and organic food and beverages will continue at a double-digit growth rate to reach $32.9 billion. For the period of 2005 to 2008, organic and natural food products grew 67.6 percent with a compounded annual growth rate of 18.8 percent. While these 2008 figures may not be as high as some of the amazing spikes in organic growth from a few years ago (often in the 20 percent range), they are clearly still higher than any other food sector. What does this demonstrate? That increasingly, despite economic costs or difficulties, consumers are willing to pay more for products grown without synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, GMOs, growth hormones, or sewage sludge.

While it may seem trivial, it is a true testament to the way in which Americans want their food grown, processed, and handled. And it looks like the times are changing as the “price gap” between organic and conventional foods continues to close with the rising cost of oil. The USDA estimates that egg prices will increase an average of 14 percent in 2008. Further research from the USDA notes that in the month of September from 2004-2007, wholesale egg prices rose from 54 cents to $1.22 for a dozen conventional eggs; yet, a dozen organic eggs only rose three cents — from $2.34 to $2.37. The price per pound of high-fructose corn-syrup went up $3.00 between 2006 and 2007, and the price of corn per bushel more than doubled in many cases during the same period. It seems likely that the areas closing the price gap the fastest will be the animal products and other items like corn-syrup that typically rely on grains for feed or production. As conventional corn, soy, and other commodity prices rise — due in part to the significant increase in the cost of fossil-fuel based fertilizers and pesticides — organic foods will likely look even more attractive for our pocketbooks.

While rising food prices are not welcome news for anyone, they are helping to flush out many of the externalities of our industrialized conventional food system. No longer can we afford to push aside the negative environmental, health and social issues that often unintentionally accompany industrial food production. For a long time Americans have enjoyed “cheap food,” thinking that we could really pay $0.99 for a box of Ho-Ho’s and not face any consequences. Increasing health care costs, rising obesity rates, and polluted communities have demonstrated otherwise. While organic isn’t perfect, it does aim to incorporate many of those costs, which is why, until recently, it has been more expensive up front. While organic may still be more expensive, trends are clearly showing that compared to conventional, it is much more price stable. Aligned with consumer demand, organic is getting more abundant, cheaper, and certainly more mainstream. As people continue to vote for a new food future with their wallets this will be increasingly true, and we can expect to see the price differences in conventional and organic foods close even more.

]]>http://grist.org/article/the-organic-times-are-a-changin/feed/0Starting today the FDA will allow producers to use irradiation on lettuce and spinachhttp://grist.org/article/a-side-of-gamma-rays-with-my-salad-please/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/a-side-of-gamma-rays-with-my-salad-please/#commentsSat, 23 Aug 2008 00:57:16 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=25218]]>The better part of this summer seemed to be dotted with stories of continued salmonella and E. coli outbreaks. First, the FDA thought the problem was with tomatoes; but, it turns out peppers were the culprits that caused more than 1,400 people in 43 states to become sick with salmonella Saintpaul. This marks yet another incident where the FDA has failed to ensure the safety of the American public and our food supply.

Now, the FDA has decided to allow use of a controversial method to combat microbial contamination of foods: irradiation. Starting Friday, the FDA will allow producers to use irradiation on spinach and lettuce in an attempt to kill disease-causing bacteria. For those who may not be up on the scientific lingo: irradiation is the use of high-energy Gamma rays, electron beams, or X-rays (which are all millions of times more powerful than standard medical X-rays) to break apart the bacteria in food.

Radiation is one of the more destructive forces in nature, and scientific studies have documented that irradiation can dramatically lower the nutritional content of foods like spinach and lettuce (irradiated foods can lose from 2-95 percent of their vitamins), particularly vitamin A and folate — an essential B vitamin. The FDA’s proposal concedes that irradiation will make spinach less nutritious. Sadly, the agency seems content to just accept the loss of such essential nutrients simply to avoid tackling the problem at its source.

While I certainly want the FDA to keep our food as safe as possible, it strikes me that the FDA is missing the fundamental key to “food safety” — the prevention of contamination from happening in the first place. Irradiation has been touted as the solution to food-borne illness in everything from spinach to deli meats. But a good, hard look at the systemic food and agricultural problems that cause these tragic outbreaks in the first place has yet to be undertaken by government agencies. Continually FDA seems to rely on after-the-fact “solutions” that fail to prevent contamination, and instead try to contain food-borne illnesses caused by such contamination after they have already occurred. In order to figure out how to prevent such tragic outbreaks in the future, it’s important to understand where pathogens such as E. coli originate.

According to the EPA, “E. coli is a type of fecal coliform bacteria commonly found in the intestines of animals and humans.” They elaborate further: “E. coli comes from human and animal wastes.” While most strains of E. coli are harmless to people, a few, like the dreaded O157:H7, are potentially fatal. Experience shows that many outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 are traceable to contamination of our foods with animal wastes, particularly from factory farms where confined conditions foster unsanitary living conditions and the spread of pathogens.

In 2006, California spinach contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 sickened over 200 people, and killed three. A field investigation by FDA and the State of California identified the same strain of E. coli O157:H7 in cattle feces from a ranch close to where the spinach was grown. Besides being the source of three-quarters of the nation’s spinach, California is home to nearly 5 million cows which produce 15 million tons of manure every year — manure that often ends up in nearby waterways, including the ditches and channels of irrigation water for crops like spinach.

I know that the FDA has a big job to do, and that the agency is tragically underfunded. Yet, continually it seems like its only “solution” to our food safety problems come in the forms of little band-aids on very big wounds. If we want to truly reduce E.coli contamination we need to get back to the source. Irradiation may kill some bacteria in our foods, but it is no substitute for measures to clean up the huge animal operations that pollute our waterways and irrigation water with the raw manure that often carries pathogenic bacteria like E. coli.

Irradiation of spinach and lettuce is not the solution to food-borne illness, because spinach and lettuce are not the problem. The problem is, quite literally, the crap that is allowed to contaminate it.

]]>http://grist.org/article/a-side-of-gamma-rays-with-my-salad-please/feed/0Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM cropshttp://grist.org/article/a-princes-dream-far-fetched-fairytale-or-a-real-future-of-food/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/a-princes-dream-far-fetched-fairytale-or-a-real-future-of-food/#commentsSat, 16 Aug 2008 02:52:06 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=25102]]>The British royal family is no stranger to controversy and media attention, but Prince Charles caused a new kind of worldwide media flurry on Tuesday when he sat down for an exclusive interview with the Telegraph (U.K.). This time around, though, it seems unlikely the media story will be covered by the British tabloids since the Prince of Wales didn’t discuss his sons, his love life, or even his future reign as king. Instead, the Prince talked about genetically modified organisms, our food supply, and the future of food security for the globe.

Simple enough, it seems: A soon-to-be global leader honestly discussed the roles of nations in food security, food technological issues, and the ways in which our entire human population can feed billions of people sustainably. Apparently, though, it’s controversial for a global leader to advocate for a food system not dominated by “gigantic corporations,” which would be an “absolute disaster.” He further noted, “Corporations [are] conducting a gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong. Why else are we facing all these challenges, climate change and everything?”

I almost wish I were British so I could be proud of such bold leadership. Prince Charles’ remarks tie together the phenomenon of increasing corporate control and business profits with that of increasing natural disasters and food insecurity. Corporate control of agriculture and our food system is at unprecedented levels, and industrial agriculture continues to rely almost exclusively on the extensive use of fossil fuels, which are ever increasing in price, perpetually polluting, and most importantly, diminishing. In the United States, over 90 percent of the soybeans harbor Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready gene; and the company continues to buy up seed companies throughout the world. This control has done nothing for world environmental and social sustainability. Instead it has only resulted in corporate profits in the billions of dollars while people continue to go hungry throughout the world.

And what about GMOs? Is Prince Charles accurate to note that they are an experiment with nature and humanity? The majority of GM crops are designed to resist herbicides and repel insects. Despite what some people may think, not a single GMO is commercially available that is designed to enhance nutrition, increase yield potential, tolerate drought, or manifest other attractive traits touted by the biotech industry. Rather, 82 percent of commercialized GM crops are designed to resist continual applications of herbicides. In reality, this means that GM crops are being developed to allow for greater pesticide use. In the United States from 1994 to 2005, there was a 15-fold increase in the use of the herbicide glyphosate on soybeans, corn, and cotton, driven by adoption of Roundup Ready (Monsanto brand) versions of these GM crops. Use of other more toxic herbicides, such as atrazine and 2,4-D, is also on the rise to deal with the epidemic of weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate.

The effect of this increased pesticide use is widespread and dramatic. Pesticides are polluting waterways, wildlife, and aquatic life while also affecting human health globally. Yet, perhaps the greatest tragedy of our GM fields is the loss of biodiversity it fosters. As our agriculture moves more and more toward monoculture with increased pesticide use, biodiversity decreases rapidly. Prince Charles specifically noted the devastating toll that corporate industrial agriculture has taken on India, especially in the Punjab. At the heart of India’s green revolution, intensive industrial agriculture has impoverished Punjab’s once-rich soils leading to diminished yields and rural breakdown. This is reflected in the rising incidence of farmer suicides.

As more and more people go hungry, natural disasters become increasingly prevalent and corporations continue to grow bigger and richer. In his interview, Prince Charles demonstrated bold leadership by decrying a system that is fundamentally flawed. Earlier this year the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) — a committee commissioned by the World Bank and United Nations — issued a report declaring “Modern agriculture will have to change radically if the world is to avoid social breakdown and environmental collapse.” The director of IAASTD further noted, “To argue, as we do, that continuing to focus on production alone will undermine our agricultural capital and leave us with an increasingly degraded and divided planet is to reiterate an old message … If those with power are now willing to hear it, then we may hope for more equitable policies that do take the interests of the poor into account.” It looks like Prince Charles has taken this to heart — his remarks are encouraging and inspiring, because they recognize all of the “externalities” that industrial food production seems to leave out of the equation. I hope he will inspire other global leaders to rethink their agricultural perspectives and advance towards a true food security.

]]>http://grist.org/article/a-princes-dream-far-fetched-fairytale-or-a-real-future-of-food/feed/0Industry report touts potential for biotech crops to combat climate changehttp://grist.org/article/sustainable-biotech-crops-solution-or-oxymoron/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/sustainable-biotech-crops-solution-or-oxymoron/#commentsThu, 31 Jul 2008 06:06:39 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=24801I am always a sucker for a catchy sounding report -- like the one the World Business Council for Sustainable Development released last week: "Agricultural Ecosystems: Facts and Trends." It had it all: the noble sounding "Council," the association between agriculture and ecosystems, and the appeal to my inner science-geek with words like "facts" and "trends." I printed it out enthusiastically and got out my highlighter, ready to read all of the fascinating new insights into agriculture, food, and the environment.

I was intrigued by the beginning section on consumer patterns which detailed the increased demand for meat in developing countries and the impact this might have worldwide. One section focused on the role of animal production in climate change. I skipped along to the climate section nodding my head in agreement the entire time: converting grasslands to agriculture is a huge source of carbon dioxide emissions; conventional agriculture can threaten biodiversity; and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions can be mitigated by integrated crop management and minimum tillage. I balked a bit when they cited that agriculture produced 14 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000 (since then the United Nations has stated that animal production alone produces 18 percent of our global greenhouse gas emissions), but I still felt confident that the report might be worth something.

Maybe I set my expectations a bit high.

]]>I am always a sucker for a catchy sounding report — like the one the World Business Council for Sustainable Development released last week: “Agricultural Ecosystems: Facts and Trends.” It had it all: the noble sounding “Council,” the association between agriculture and ecosystems, and the appeal to my inner science-geek with words like “facts” and “trends.” I printed it out enthusiastically and got out my highlighter, ready to read all of the fascinating new insights into agriculture, food, and the environment.

I was intrigued by the beginning section on consumer patterns which detailed the increased demand for meat in developing countries and the impact this might have worldwide. One section focused on the role of animal production in climate change. I skipped along to the climate section nodding my head in agreement the entire time: converting grasslands to agriculture is a huge source of carbon dioxide emissions; conventional agriculture can threaten biodiversity; and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions can be mitigated by integrated crop management and minimum tillage. I balked a bit when they cited that agriculture produced 14 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000 (since then the United Nations has stated that animal production alone produces 18 percent of our global greenhouse gas emissions), but I still felt confident that the report might be worth something.

Maybe I set my expectations a bit high.

The report was in the home stretch and almost had me on board, until it started to mention the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications and biotech crops. The ISAAA, a front group for the biotech industry, has been pushing biotech crops as a solution for climate change because of their supposed reduced tillage (and thus reduced carbon emissions). The report notes that because of biotech crops and reduced tillage, more than 14.8 million tons of CO2 have been removed from the air. Suddenly this report didn’t seem so unbiased anymore.

I must say though, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development wasn’t completely one-sided, they did give a little shout out for those of us who aren’t jumping up and down about GMOs. “Some members of the public have concerns about biotechnology — generally these refer to its perceived negative impact on food safety and the environment.” That’s it — no attempt to counter these “members of the public.” Food safety and human impacts aside, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development has completely overlooked the latest research with regards to no-till and organic agriculture.

For nine years the United States Department of Agriculture conducted a study to examine the difference between conventional no-till agriculture and organic agriculture. The USDA results, out last year, demonstrated that not only does organic agriculture increase soil health but also it offsets more emissions than conventional no-till farming. In laymen’s terms: Even the best conventional agriculture can’t beat organic. The research doesn’t stop there. Last week I attended a Congressional briefing presented by the Rodale Institute discussing their studies over the past 30 years comparing conventional and organic farming methods. Systems using cover crops and compost, combined with no-till organic practices, had the lowest energy inputs when compared to conventional no-till and traditional organic.

Adopting no-till, cover crop and compost farming methods would result in an agricultural system that could mitigate 40 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions. It is as far away from the Monsanto monocropped field of corn as you can imagine, and the potential benefits could fundamentally change our nation’s entire agricultural focus.

What the USDA and the Rodale Institute confirmed is that a quick technological fix for our agricultural system does not exist now and never was a viable solution. Those who tout biotech crops as means to reduce climate change have clearly not considered the vast inputs, and consequential emissions, of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, transportation, and farm equipment that come with these seeds. Agriculture has a unique opportunity to mitigate and even reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. To harness that potential, we should begin to promote the methods of farming proven to reduce emissions. Biotech crops: not included.

]]>http://grist.org/article/sustainable-biotech-crops-solution-or-oxymoron/feed/0California’s Prop 2 could end the worst farm-animal abuses and set a national precedenthttp://grist.org/article/down-on-the-factory-farm/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/down-on-the-factory-farm/#commentsSat, 26 Jul 2008 02:02:35 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=24729When Californians go to the polls in November they can set a precedent for the rest of the country by ending the worst animal and environmental abuses and simultaneously increasing the safety of our national food supply.

It's an election year and we all know what that means -- big money, big events, and big promises. As the rest of the country listens endlessly to the political propaganda of the last few desperate months before November, California voters are being fed an entirely different mouthful of issues -- the living conditions of the billions of farm animals slaughtered in this country every year. This weekend the Humane Society of the United States will hold a series of cross-country parties to mark the celebration of their historical ballot initiative in California: the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act or Proposition 2.

]]>When Californians go to the polls in November they can set a precedent for the rest of the country by ending the worst animal and environmental abuses and simultaneously increasing the safety of our national food supply.

It’s an election year and we all know what that means — big money, big events, and big promises. As the rest of the country listens endlessly to the political propaganda of the last few desperate months before November, California voters are being fed an entirely different mouthful of issues — the living conditions of the billions of farm animals slaughtered in this country every year. This weekend the Humane Society of the United States will hold a series of cross-country parties to mark the celebration of their historical ballot initiative in California: the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act or Proposition 2.

In case you haven’t noticed, the Humane Society represents more than just dogs and cats and has stepped up its campaign to fight a staggering amount of the worst animal abuses from a variety of industries. Proposition 2 is its latest effort to halt the use of battery cages for laying hens, gestation crates for pregnant and nursing pigs, and veal crates. These production methods represent the worst of animal conditions where animals are unable to turn around, spread their wings and limbs, and exhibit other natural behaviors. Yet, these types of confined animal production methods are not just perpetuating misery in farm animals — they are devastating our environment and jeopardizing the food safety of our entire country.

Such factory farms create living conditions in which animals are sickened by close confinement, lack of fresh air, and improper handling techniques. It is precisely this type of confinement that has led to an increase in the past few decades of human food-borne illnesses including salmonella and contributed to increased antibiotic use in animals, and thus human resistance. Environmentally, manure and wastes from confined animal operations account for three times as much waste as humans produce and often go untreated. This waste is contributing to emissions that are rapidly warming the planet and creating water pollution and “dead zones” nationwide. Proposition 2 is supported by numerous highly regarded environmental, animal, and human health organizations in the country including the Center for Food Safety, the California Veterinary Medical Association, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Unfortunately, the egg, poultry, and veal industries are attacking the initiative with support from millions of dollars of industry money, by using a variety of health scare tactics that are simply false. In their ballot argument against Proposition 2, the industry opposition describes the initiative as “risky and extreme.” They note that “modern housing systems” (battery cages) will protect consumers against salmonella and Avian Influenza and other diseases and that Proposition 2 will “force” hens outdoors. But at least one study has clearly demonstrated that caged systems are in fact the greatest risk factor for salmonella contamination and an additional study demonstrated that industrial poultry production can increase the risk of Avian Influenza. The industry attempts to scare Californians into perpetuating an unsafe and inhumane production system when in reality the industry is likely concerned with its own profits if Proposition 2 passes. In a time when 76 million Americans are stricken by food poisoning every year, the last thing California and the rest of this country needs is a continuation of the status quo.

California is the world’s eighth largest economy and a powerhouse state that has a history of passing and enforcing laws that eventually become accepted nationally. When Californians go to the polls in November they can vote to end the most horrific animal abuses and environmental issues in this country. At the same time, they will be exercising their right to stand up for a healthier and safer national food supply that is so desperately needed. I am trusting Californians to vote yes on Proposition 2 and set the standard for animal, environmental, and food safety standards for the rest of the country to follow.

This morning, sitting at my backyard patio table and drinking my morning coffee, I looked appreciatively out into my backyard and took a satisfying breath. The highway behind my house roared with the morning rush hour traffic, the high rise apartments across the street were bustling with people hurrying off to school and work, and I was sitting in my own piece of urban heaven. In the past three months, my small yet robust rhombus-shaped backyard has turned into a garden oasis rarely found in even the fertile soils of rural areas. Three raised beds and several fence-side beds later, I was staring at the most satisfying seeds I had ever sowed -- and all of this in the middle of Washington, D.C.

This morning, sitting at my backyard patio table and drinking my morning coffee, I looked appreciatively out into my backyard and took a satisfying breath. The highway behind my house roared with the morning rush hour traffic, the high rise apartments across the street were bustling with people hurrying off to school and work, and I was sitting in my own piece of urban heaven. In the past three months, my small yet robust rhombus-shaped backyard has turned into a garden oasis rarely found in even the fertile soils of rural areas. Three raised beds and several fence-side beds later, I was staring at the most satisfying seeds I had ever sowed — and all of this in the middle of Washington, D.C.

Increasingly, I realize that I am not alone in my urban homesteading. My next door neighbor traded us some of his sweet cherries off his trees in early June for the promise of ripe tomatoes later on in the summer. I’m attending locavore dinners that include not only produce from the weekend market but homegrown and homemade goodies. And suddenly it’s not so strange to ask for canning jars at the hardware store, which I did at 7:00 a.m. to process my strawberry preserves before work.

So why now? Today’s slow yet steady movement towards the more sustainable has a decidedly urban feel to it. I am an outdoor person, and like so many other people I know who are “doing the city thing” we need our outdoor fix. It seems like more and more urbanites are reconnecting with their land — in small plots and empty yards all over America’s urban hotspots. It is a gesture that promises to be better for the environment by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and at the same time better for the health of urban populations which have gone too long without access to fresh produce.

Summer is a great time for local foods — so why not make it as local as I can? It’s part an environmental gesture, part a desire for greater self-sufficiency, and maybe even a bit selfish. After all, the fresh homemade pesto and homegrown peas and pasta I shared last night with my friend Carolyn not only had a low carbon foodprint, but were purely and simply delicious.

]]>http://grist.org/article/a-whole-new-kind-of-local/feed/0Sustainability goals for the U.S. dairy industryhttp://grist.org/article/milking-sustainability/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/milking-sustainability/#commentsFri, 04 Jul 2008 03:19:39 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=24371Last week, we witnessed the dairy industry hold their first ever Sustainability Summit for U.S. Dairy. The week long conference culminated in the announcement of an industry-wide commitment and action plan to reduce milk's "carbon footprint" while simultaneously increasing business value (translation: profit) from farm to consumer. But how truly "green" are their efforts? ]]>Last week, we witnessed the dairy industry hold their first ever Sustainability Summit for U.S. Dairy. The week long conference culminated in the announcement of an industry-wide commitment and action plan to reduce milk’s “carbon footprint” while simultaneously increasing business value (translation: profit) from farm to consumer. But how truly “green” are their efforts?

Sustainability — ah, it sounds so good doesn’t it? In recent years it has become the buzz word among businesses. Most large corporations have sustainability officers and are taking huge strides to become “greener.” In part, these initiatives are driven by consumer and public demand for better accountability, social and environmental justice and healthier products. Last week, we witnessed the dairy industry jump on the bandwagon when they held their first ever Sustainability Summit for U.S. Dairy. The week long conference culminated in the announcement of an industry-wide commitment and action plan to reduce milk’s “carbon footprint” while simultaneously increasing business value from farm to consumer.

I am timidly optimistic. Conventional dairy production worldwide is an incredibly energy intensive system that relies on chemicals, hormones, and feed crops grown with pesticides and fertilizers. It is estimated that dairy production contributes almost 155 billion pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere per year — the equivalent of more than 14 million cars. With such a massive carbon impact, I am relieved to see the dairy industry finally recognize the need to reduce its impact on global warming. Among key actions are a variety of efforts to reduce energy use and thus emissions and costs. If these ideas are put into real action, dairy’s efforts should be applauded as a step in the right direction. Yet, they seem to be missing the bigger picture.

You can’t help notice that these action initiatives appear to be driven by economic incentives with emission reductions taking a backseat. Perhaps, in these times of continually rising fuel prices, the dairy industry is starting to realize just how unsustainable their methods truly are. Fortunately, the industry can achieve both a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions and an increase in profits — not through any far-fetched technologies to increase production, but by returning to the more natural organic systems that consumers are increasingly demanding.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that organic dairy production produces between one-half to one-third fewer greenhouse-gas emissions and uses about 30 percent less energy than conventional dairy production. Reduced energy costs help offset the price of methane digesters for manure, which could then provide long-term energy production for on-farm power needs.

With organic milk — one of the most commonly purchased organic products — there is also a financial incentive. Despite increasing food prices, demand for organic products continues to rise. Since organic dairy producers are paid a premium for their products, organic dairy puts more money in farmers’ pockets.

To me it seems like a win-win situation, so I am perplexed as to why the dairy industry’s action initiatives don’t include any transitions to organic production systems. I have hope that the dairy industry may catch up, but I’m not willing to wait. You can reduce your own greenhouse-gas emissions by purchasing organic, grass-fed, and local milk, cheeses, and dairy products to reduce your carbon footprint and help support community farmers. Check out the Cool Foods Campaign website for additional ways to reduce your own FoodPrint.

Corn syrup manufacturers are going on the offensive -- and that includes a charm offensive. The Corn Refiners Association -- an industry trade group -- launched a new marketing campaign yesterday that coincided with the announcement of the multi-billion dollar merger.

]]>This week’s $4.8 billion merger of Corn Products International and Bunge Ltd. probably didn’t catch your eye, but with revenues projected to increase 29 percent this year to $4 billion, you might consider paying attention — for the sake of your belly and the environment.

Corn syrup manufacturers are going on the offensive — and that includes a charm offensive. The Corn Refiners Association — an industry trade group — launched a new marketing campaign yesterday that coincided with the announcement of the multi-billion dollar merger.

Corn syrup is trying to clean up its image, but its glossy, interactive website won’t work. In an era when two-thirds of Americans are overweight, it’s about time we start to re-examine food policy. Surprisingly, (or not, depending on how closely you follow America’s convoluted food system) it all comes back to corn. We produce so much corn (heavily subsidized by our tax dollars) that we are feeding it to our cows, turning it into fuel, and developing sweeteners and additives that are pervasive in packaged and processed foods. The average American eats more than 14 tablespoons of sugar a day and an increasing amount of sweeterners is coming from corn syrup. So I am forced to ask: why are we subsidizing the obesity of our own country?

More than 76 million acres of corn are cultivated annually in the United States. Of overall U.S. production, 43 percent will be fed to livestock, more than 20 percent will be turned into ethanol, and most of the remainder will become high fructose corn syrup, corn oil and a host of other corn-based additives and starches destined to end up in foods such as the heavily processed, over-packaged Ring Ding. Yet, the consequences of producing so much corn don’t end at our own belt buckles. While the government spends billions to subsidize food that adds weight to our bellies, they simultaneously fund destruction of America’s fertile land.

The environmental impact of growing all of this corn is simply astounding. Aside from industrial animal production, there is no food raised that is more destructive than industrial corn. Every year, this corn is sprayed with 162 million pounds of chemical pesticides. The production, packaging, and transport of these pesticides contribute 2.7 billion pounds of greenhouse gases to the environment every year. An estimated 17.8 billion pounds of synthetic fertilizers are used on our corn every year — more than any other crop — contributing an additional 35 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions. When you add harvesting, processing, and water pollution from agricultural runoff, you’ve got one big carbon footprint. It derives almost completely from animals, corn syrup and preservatives.

The funny thing about corn is that most of the kind that we grow in this country doesn’t directly feed people. (Having grown up in Northern Maryland, I learned that when I got hungry while playing in corn fields next to my house.) Industrial corn grown for animals and corn byproducts does not taste at all like the corn we eat. The delicious sweet corn we all cherish during summer months is only a small percentage of corn grown domestically. Farm stand corn has a minimal environmental impact, and its nutritional value can not be disputed. Unfortunately, its industrial cousin seems to have gained all the fame — at least in the eyes of corporations and agri-business investors.

Like a growing number of Americans, I am swearing off corn-syrup and as many corn byproducts as possible. You can reduce your own “FoodPrint” by not buying over-packaged foods and processed foods containing byproducts from corn grown with pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, and a lot of fuel. By giving up corn-sweetened and preserved foods, you’ll also, hopefully, be opting for more whole foods, which are better for your health and the environment. Organic alternatives may still contain corn products but at least you’ll know you are buying something that was grown without pesticides, herbicides and other non-organic inputs that pollute soil and waterways.

The Corn Refiners Association spent a lot of money on their marketing campaign, but their slogan “Time for a little food for thought — isn’t it?” feels ironic. It is time for some food for thought, but why don’t we think about why we are growing so much corn in the first place? What will our society and environment actually gain?

]]>http://grist.org/article/amazin-maize/feed/0Latest health scare exposes a frayed food-safety nethttp://grist.org/article/rotten-tomatoes/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_meredithniles
http://grist.org/article/rotten-tomatoes/#commentsThu, 19 Jun 2008 20:41:00 +0000http://www.grist.org/?p=24093Salmonella-infected tomatoes have made headlines over the course of the last week, but there's nothing new about the problem that tainted tomatoes reveal.This outbreak has put more than 25 people in the hospital and sickened hundreds, but it is just the latest in a long line of sickness and recalls.

Salmonella in tomatoes, spinach, and lettuce, eColi in peanut butter, beef from downer cows; all throw into question the legitimacy of agency claims that the U.S. has the best food safety apparatus in the world. The facts are clear: after years of budget and staffing cuts, America's food safety net is frayed past the point of effectiveness.

]]>Salmonella-infected tomatoes have made headlines over the course of the last week, but there’s nothing new about the problem that tainted tomatoes reveal.This outbreak has put more than 25 people in the hospital and sickened hundreds, but it is just the latest in a long line of sickness and recalls.

Salmonella in tomatoes, spinach, and lettuce, eColi in peanut butter, beef from downer cows; all throw into question the legitimacy of agency claims that the U.S. has the best food safety apparatus in the world. The facts are clear: after years of budget and staffing cuts, America’s food safety net is frayed past the point of effectiveness.

The CDC reports that food-borne illnesses increased more than tenfold between 1970 and 1999 and an astounding 76 million people have been infected annually.

While the FDA simultaneously touts our food supply as the “safest in the world”, it daily struggles to handle fundamental food safety in the face of a crippling lack of resources. Two weeks ago salmonella-infected tomatoes quickly made their way to more than 16 states with documented outbreaks. Last week, with 28 states reporting cases, the magnitude of the problem became quickly evident: the FDA had failed us yet again.

This type of contamination is well understood and avoidable. Salmonella- and eColi-poisoned produce is created indirectly by our nation’s “animal factories,” where inhumane and overly crowded conditions produce tainted manure that can contaminate agricultural water sources and make its way to farm fields as fertilizer.

However, while piles of tomatoes are left to rot in air-conditioned grocery stores all over the country, news articles are popping up from New Jersey to California with the important message that locally grown tomatoes may be a safer alternative.

Want a fresh tomato salad? Go to the farmers market this weekend, talk to the farmer that grew the tomatoes and buy a few pounds without a worry in the world. Unlike the salmonella tomatoes which have been shipped all over the country and grown on large, industrial, mechanized farms, small-scale local farms are run by farmers who know their land, what they put in it, and what comes out of it.

Lessons to be learned from this latest incident are ones we should have learned years ago when outbreaks of this magnitude began to occur. These outbreaks signal that the environmental and human health impacts of industrial agriculture can no longer be ignored — especially as recent reports indicate that the modern industrialized food system may be responsible for up to 25% of greenhouse gas emissions – even more than the transportation sector.

We can also see clearly that the best and safest food is that which is fresh, grown locally, and produced humanely without harmful chemicals and inputs that can result in contamination. It becomes more and more obvious that what is good for the earth and our communities — organic, local, and whole foods — is also what is best for our bodies.

Until the nation’s food safety system can be fixed, it’s up to each consumer to take better control over their own food supply and change their buying habits. If you want to ensure safer food and do something for your health this summer — don’t stop eating tomatoes. Instead, just make sure they’re local and you’ll be eating healthy for yourself, your family, and for the earth as well.